alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2164. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–424, title I, §102(g)(1)(A), Oct. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 942

Section, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, §204, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 427, related to the establishment, duties and appointment of officers of the Development Loan Committee. The provisions of this section were redesignated as subsec. (e) of section 2151t of this title by section 102(d)(1), (2) of Pub. L. 95–424.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 605 of Pub. L. 95–424, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 2151 of this title.
### §6931. Review within the WTO

It shall be the objective of the United States to obtain as part of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO, an annual review within the WTO of the compliance by the People's Republic of China with its terms of accession to the WTO.

(Pub. L. 106–286, div. B, title IV, §401, Oct. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 900.)
EXHIBIT 32.1
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                MARWICH II, LTD.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.D. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marwich II, Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Porath, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Peter Porath
----------------------------
Peter Porath
Vice-President, Chief Executive Officer
September 19, 2005
### §6541. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Congress finds that—

(1) it is the policy of the United States to promote the right of freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom "to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers", in accordance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(2) open communication of information and ideas among the peoples of the world contributes to international peace and stability, and the promotion of such communication is in the interests of the United States;

(3) it is in the interest of the United States to support broadcasting to other nations consistent with the requirements of this part and the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 [22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.]; and

(4) international broadcasting is, and should remain, an essential instrument of United States foreign policy.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. A, title XIII, §1321, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–777.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This part, referred to in par. (3), was in the original "this chapter", meaning chapter 3 (§§1321–1328) of title XIII of subdiv. A of div. G of Pub. L. 105–277, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–777. For complete classification of chapter 3 to the Code, see Tables.

The United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, referred to in par. (3), is title III of Pub. L. 103–236, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 432, which is classified principally to chapter 71 (§6201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6201 of this title and Tables.
NUMBER 13-21-00163-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

DANNY BERYMON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of DeWitt County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Before the Court is appellant’s pro se motion for access to the appellate record. 

On August 26, 2021, appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief, and appellant has been 

unable to examine the record in order to file an amended pro se brief, if any. 

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and it is hereby ordered that the trial court 

ensure that appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or 
2

before fifteen (15) days from the date this order issues. It is further ordered that the trial 

court notify this Court as to the date upon which the appellate record was made available 

to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Furthermore, appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record 

is first made available to him to file his amended pro se brief, if any, with this Court. The 

State shall have twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

10th day of March, 2022.
§ 618.650 State standards and procedures for establishing reasonable cost of training. ( a ) A State is not prohibited from setting a statewide limit or limits for local workforce development areas on the amount of training costs considered reasonable and appropriate for training programs. Any limit(s) must reasonably take into account the costs of training available in the local workforce development areas throughout the State and the expenditure must be prudent under the standards of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200.404) and its attendant interpretive administrative guidance. Additionally, States must comply with the standards for reasonableness in § 618.610(f)(2), including those permitting States to allow training other than the least-cost option if the extra cost is justified by better trade-affected worker outcomes or a faster return to the workforce. If the State chooses to implement a statewide limit, it must arrive at a reasonable limit based upon training costs throughout the State, recognizing that costs may vary significantly between urban areas and rural areas. The State must also develop and implement a method to exceed the limit(s), which must require the local area to secure State approval, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, before training is approved.
( b ) The State must develop transparent standards and procedures that provide for prompt consideration of any request for approval of training costs that exceed the established training cost limit(s) set by the State under paragraph (a) of this section. The review standards developed by the State under this paragraph (b) must allow for approval of costs that exceed the applicable training cost limit when a training program that exceeds the cost limit(s) will provide the most reasonable way of returning a particular trade-affected worker to employment at higher wages—or on a pathway to do so—than in the absence of training.
( c ) The State must propose an alternative training program consistent with the reasonable cost criteria, as described at § 618.610, when a training program is not approvable under the established limits and does not meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) The State must review any limits established under paragraph (a) of this section on an annual basis to determine whether they are still appropriate, and change or end such limits when they no longer reasonably reflect the average cost of training available in the local workforce development areas throughout the State.
( e ) Whenever a State establishes, changes, or ends State-established limits on training costs payable under paragraph (a) of this section, the State must provide written notice and full documentation supporting its action to the Department for review.
( f ) States are not required to establish a limit on training costs.
Motion Granted; Order filed February 9, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00474-CV

____________

CHERYL SUE ZARSKY, Appellant

V.

CAROLYN ANN WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF 

THE ESTATE OF ORA WHITE, DECEASED, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 456601-401

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 2, 2020. The notice of appeal 

was timely filed on July 1, 2020. On August 26, 2020, counsel for appellant, 

Cheryl Sue Zarsky, filed a suggestion of death informing this court that Zarsky 

died on August 4, 2020.

On September 3, 2020, we abated this appeal to allow counsel time to obtain 

authority from the estate of Cheryl Sue Zarsky to pursue this appeal. See Casillas 

v. Cano, 79 S.W.3d 587, 592 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburgh 2002, no 

pet.); Murphy v. Murphy, 21 S.W.3d 797, 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2000, published order).
On October 30, 2020, counsel for appellant informed this court that a contest 

had been brought against appellant’s will. We continued the abatement until 

January 5, 2021 to allow counsel more time, in light of the contest, to seek 

authorization to represent the estate. 

On January 5, 2021, counsel informed this court that the will contest has 

been delayed due to the pandemic. Counsel had previously informed this court that 

he had been working with Cheryl Sue Zarsky’s daughter, Cherie Zarsky, who was 

named as beneficiary in appellant’s 2009 will, and that Cherie Zarsky has filed an 

application for a temporary administrator who will have standing to pursue this 

appeal. Considering the new progress made in the probate matter, counsel requests

that the abatement period in this appeal be continued until March 8, 2021 so that a 

temporary administrator may be appointed to prosecute this appeal.

The motion is granted. This court requires assurance from whomever is 

deemed the personal representative of the estate of Cheryl Sue Zarsky that it is 

represented by counsel by March 8, 2021, or the appeal will be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
No. 89-1063.

#### FirsTier Mortgage Co., aka Realbanc, Inc. *v.*Investors Mortgage Insurance Co.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.
### Regulatory Evaluation 

### Docket No. FAA- 

## ;lot?- 

# !;;57 Directorate Identifier: lfyou make changes to the values in the table belo·w. you must ensure the totals update accordingly.


### lf they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. Estimated Costs: Action

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection,

nroneller, annliance\ **Work~hours** Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include **on~** condition costs here

access, testing, (@$85/h pam) Registered and **close~up)** om) Products Inspection



### 2.0

.:> 

# .. .

• 10 

# • . '

. '

o.:



## . . · 

## ...

.

• .



### ' '



# . i_.

•

,·,_ '

' 

## . •



## '

'<:

' **,~**



### :

. '



## . 

## ,,

' '
.. ·.·. 

## : --c 

## '

' The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of comnliance for U.S. fleet: $1,700 Costs covered under warrantv (if known)

$ **On~Condition** Costs: Action

**Work~hours** Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection,

(include access, (@$85/hom) replacement)

testing, and **close~** up) 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):Executive Order 12866: 

### Could the AD be considered

a "significant regulatory action"? -, 

### YES'0 **NO~** 

### *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

### Is the AD significant?

-



### YES' D **NO~** 

### *Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility 

### Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No 

# answer.,~,

YESD **NO~** 

### Explanation: This AD is not considered to be "significant" Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

### This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate
to include_ specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

·- 

### YES'D **NO~** 

### *Explanation:

(
R. 40 E R. 41 E R. 42 E

T. 6 N

T. 5 N

T. 4 N

Wenah a River

Bear Cre ek

6200

6200

6200

6222

6219

6217

6214

E lbow Cr eek

Grande Rond e Rive r

G rande

Ronde River

Wenaha River-Rock Creek

Lower Butte Creek

Wenaha River-Cross Canyon

Elbow Creek

Lower Wenaha River

Grande Ronde River-Slickfoot Creek

Wildcat Creek

Grossman Creek

Grande Ronde-Bear Creek

Grande Ronde-Clear Creek

Sheep Creek

Jarboe Creek

Grande Ronde-Clear Creek

Little

Lookingglass

Creek

Upper South Fork

Wenaha River

Lower South Fork Wenaha River

Bear CreekHunt Spring

1

3

6

1

9

2

1

3

5 2

4

4

5

6

7

8

3

9

7

9

5

9

6

5

4

8

9

1

8

8

3

9

6

7

2

2

4

7

8

8

7

1

7

2 1

4 6 3 5

5 4 3 2 1

6

11

1

30

11

11

11

31

24

12

31

29

35 32

14

25

33

18

31

36

13

34

12

29

11

32

33

36

14

16

28 30

10

16

34

35 33

28

29

13

28

31

11

21

35

25

32

25

13

21

17

27

10

17

29

24

16

27

34

36

27

22

10

32

26

20

16

23

33

26

32

36

27

19

28

36

10

34

18

12

13

23

25

26

12

29

25

14

20

17

12

22 23

27

28

33

13

36

14

30

26

15

26

24

15

28

20

34

17

21

27

15

33

10

14

34

30

18

16

15

19

19

35

10

15

26

30 29

32

18

25

22

31

35

35

17

30

31

6

12

12

7

18

7

19 20 21

36

22 23

14 13 15

24

25

24

16

13

17

19 20

12

30

21

31

36

18

22

6

25

23

13

24

24

18

19

20

23

21

30

22

18

24

31

23

22

24

20 21 19

19

19

20 21 22 23 24

Cobbler II Project Planning Area

Subwatershed Area Map

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

 ́

ATTENTION

This product is reproduced from geospatial information

prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They

may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy,

accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or

interpretation, incomplete while being created or

revised. etc... Using GIS products for purposes other

than those for which they were created may yield

inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service

reserves the right to correct,update,modify,or replace

GIS products without notification. For more information

contact the The Umatilla National Forest Supervisors office.

File path is (C:\gis\wwproj\cobblerII\maps\sws.mxd) 11/25/2008.

1:74,000

Legend

Cobbler II Project Planning Area

Walla Walla Ranger District Boundary

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Grande Ronde Inventoried Roadless Area

Subwatershed

Fish Distribution

Steelhead/Redband Trout

Steelhead/Redband and Bull Trout

Steelhead/Redband, Chinook and Bulltrout

Steelhead/Redband presumed, not confirmed

Alternative B Haul Route

Open

Closed

Alder Creek
#### § 702.313 Informal conferences; how called; when called.

Informal conferences may be called upon not less than 10 days' notice to the parties, unless the parties agree to meet at an earlier date. The notice may be given by telephone, but shall be confirmed by use of a written notice on a form prescribed by the Director. The notice shall indicate the date, time and place of the conference, and shall also specify the matters to be discussed. For good cause shown conferences may be rescheduled. A copy of such notice shall be placed in the administrative file.
San Luis Reservoir

484.31 ft. Res. Elev. Storage: 1,331,364 AF Change -6,606 AF

Capacity: 2,027,835 AF % Capacity 65.7 %

Federal Storage: 820,779 AF Change -3,920 AF

Capacity: 965,655 AF % Capacity 85.0 %

State Storage: 510,585 AF Change -2,686 AF

Capacity: 1,062,180 AF % Capacity 48.1 %

Jones Pumping Plant

Delta - Mendota Canal 1822 AF Federal Discharge for 24 hours Accum. Fed 27,278 AF

0 AF State Discharge for 24 hours Accum. State 0 AF

1,822 AF Total Discharge for 24 hours

O'Neill Forebay

221.28 ft. Res. Elev. Storage: 46,495 AF Change: -1,077 AF Accum. Change -

2,793

AF

Capacity: 56,400 AF Capacity: 82.4 %

O'Neill Forebay - Inflow

California Aqueduct 0 AF Federal Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. Fed 0 AF

1,099 AF State Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. State 9,953 AF

1,099 AF Total Discharge for 24 hrs

O'Neill Pumping 19 AF Federal Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. Fed 2,475 AF

0 AF State Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. State 0 AF

19 AF Total Discharge for 24 hrs

San Luis Generation 3,620 AF Federal Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. Fed 67,425 AF

2,669 AF State Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. State 32,789 AF

6,289 AF Total Discharge for 24 hrs

O'Neill Forebay - Release

O'Neill Generation 1,173 AF Generation Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. Fed 16,871 AF

San Luis Pumping 0 AF Federal Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. Fed 0 AF

0 AF State Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. State 3,686 AF

0 AF Total Discharge for 24 hrs

Dos Amigos Pumping 1,999 AF Federal Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. Fed 38,959 AF

4,796 AF State Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. State 53,083 AF

6,795 AF Total Discharge for 24 hrs

San Luis Reservoir

Pacheco Pumping 286 AF SLR Discharge for 24 hrs Accum. 2,853 AF

Delta Mendota Canal and Mendota Pool

DMC - Pool Demand 2,976 AF Jones DMC + O'Neill Generation - O'Neill 

Pumping

Accum. 41,674 AF

Historical Archive and Report Database

South of Delta Daily Operations Report

 Run Date: 5/14/2024

May 13, 2024
### §705. Imprisonment

Persons sentenced to imprisonment by a service court of a friendly foreign force may be confined in disciplinary barracks, guardhouses, or other places of detention of the United States armed forces or in penitentiaries or other institutions employed by the United States for the detention or treatment of prisoners, at the expense of the state on whose behalf the prisoner is detained.

(June 30, 1944, ch. 326, §5, 58 Stat. 644.)
#### Carl Backus, Appellant, v. Michael Mietus, Respondent.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, on the ground that the question as to whether an unreasonable time had elapsed between the sale and rescission was one of fact for the jury. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant in an action for breach of warranty.) Present — Taylor P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 496.20

 496.40

 496.70

 497.00

 497.26

 497.59

 497.91

 498.44

 498.95

 499.46

 500.09

 501.00

 501.40

 502.10

 502.89

 503.53

 504.06

 504.71

 505.52

 506.02

 506.81

 507.20

 507.74

 508.15

 508.50

 509.10

 509.74

 510.75

 511.63

 512.30

 1,464,301

 1,466,573

 1,469,984

 1,473,398

 1,476,358

 1,480,119

 1,483,769

 1,489,820

 1,495,651

 1,501,490

 1,508,714

 1,519,168

 1,523,771

 1,531,838

 1,540,960

 1,548,363

 1,554,503

 1,562,044

 1,571,459

 1,577,281

 1,586,493

 1,591,048

 1,597,363

 1,602,162

 1,606,264

 1,613,303

 1,620,823

 1,632,714

 1,643,100

 1,651,022

STORAGE

+3,407

+2,272

+3,411

+3,414

+2,960

+3,761

+3,650

+6,051

+5,831

+5,839

+7,224

+10,454

+4,603

+8,067

+9,122

+7,403

+6,140

+7,541

+9,415

+5,822

+9,212

+4,555

+6,315

+4,799

+4,102

+7,039

+7,520

+11,891

+10,386

+7,922

CHANGE

1,753

1,814

2,088

1,809

2,087

1,814

2,247

3,486

3,437

3,355

3,914

5,305

2,616

4,737

5,342

4,194

4,073

4,083

5,386

3,165

5,166

2,863

3,586

2,701

2,504

3,379

4,637

6,708

6,174

4,065

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 188

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 252

 244

 211

 136

 122

 141

 131

 127

 126

 134

 127

 144

 202

 209

 207

 201

 200

 164

 130

 136

 134

 132

 136

 138

 134

 128

 160

 154

 152

 291

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

+217

-425

-157

+48

-473

+223

-276

-309

-372

-277

-145

+110

-93

-461

-536

-261

-777

-117

-510

-94

-388

-247

-266

-144

-302

+298

-686

-559

-786

+221

OR

 66

 48

 59

 55

 18

 48

 55

 66

 96

 0

 7

 15

 37

 48

 30

 26

 38

 4

 0

 38

 19

 8

 8

 76

 0

 76

 30

 38

 31

 31

C.F.S.

 .18

 .13

 .16

 .15

 .05

 .13

 .15

 .18

 .26

 .00

 .02

 .04

 .10

 .13

 .08

 .07

 .10

 .01

 .00

 .10

 .05

 .02

 .02

 .20

 .00

 .20

 .08

 .10

 .08

 .08

INCHES

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .11

 .02

 .16

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .11

 .03

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR April 11, 2007

DAILY OPERATIONS

NOVEMBER 2006 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +190,128 108,488 188 4,903 0 -7,544 1,071 2.87 .55

ACRE-FEET +190,128 215,186 373 9,725 0 -14,964 2,124

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 373

PACHECO TUNNEL 9,725 TOTAL 10,098

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2006 TO DATE = .87

 1,460,894

SPILL 0 .55

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
#### In the Matter of David Hendrickson et al., Appellants, against Charles *857E. Ransom, as County Clerk of Nassau County, Respondent.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.