alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§900, 901. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159

Section 900, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title V, §500, as added Sept. 8, 1960, Pub. L. 86–723, §7, 74 Stat. 832, set forth Congressional declaration of policy on qualifications for assignment of chiefs of missions and Foreign Service officers.

Section 901, acts Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title V, §501, 60 Stat. 1007; Aug. 5, 1955, ch. 576, §5, 69 Stat. 537; July 13, 1972, Pub. L. 92–352, title I, §107, 86 Stat. 492; Aug. 17, 1977, Pub. L. 95–105, title IV, §403, 91 Stat. 853, related to appointment and assignment of ambassadors, ministers, etc., by President.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 10608

Ex. Ord. No. 10608, May 5, 1955, 20 F.R. 3093, was transferred to a note set out under section 3942 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-01-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-2000
<CASH>                                         965,089
<SECURITIES>                                 1,736,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                  628,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                   161,411
<INVENTORY>                                    273,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,300,152
<PP&E>                                       1,519,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 821,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,353,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,144,366
<BONDS>                                          2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,294,942
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,836,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,353,947
<SALES>                                        933,764
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               933,764
<CGS>                                          593,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  593,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               486,274
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,224
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (83,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (20,795)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (63,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,537
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (59,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
### §8542. Identification of countries of concern with respect to the diversion of certain goods, services, and technologies to or through Iran

#### (a) In general

Not later than 180 days after July 1, 2010, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the appropriate congressional committees a report that identifies each country the government of which the Director believes, based on all information available to the Director, is allowing the diversion through the country of goods, services, or technologies described in subsection (b) to Iranian end-users or Iranian intermediaries.

#### (b) Goods, services, and technologies described

Goods, services, or technologies described in this subsection are goods, services, or technologies—

(1) that—

(A) originated in the United States;

(B) would make a material contribution to Iran's—

(i) development of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons;

(ii) ballistic missile or advanced conventional weapons capabilities; or

(iii) support for international terrorism; and

(C) are—

(i) items on the Commerce Control List or services related to those items; or

(ii) defense articles or defense services on the United States Munitions List; or

(2) that are prohibited for export to Iran under a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

#### (c) Updates

The Director of National Intelligence shall update the report required by subsection (a)—

(1) as new information becomes available; and

(2) not less frequently than annually.

#### (d) Form

The report required by subsection (a) and the updates required by subsection (c) may be submitted in classified form.

(Pub. L. 111–195, title III, §302, July 1, 2010, 124 Stat. 1346.)

#### Termination of Section

For termination of section, see section 8551(a) of this title.
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

31

DAY HIGH

 358

 362

 347

 345

 345

 334

 335

 323

 326

 347

 327

 343

 346

 344

 353

 365

 367

 365

 408

 347

 340

 371

 419

 398

 439

 447

 424

 462

 418

 522

 596

 230

 264

 251

 242

 196

 199

 205

 193

 238

 232

 204

 261

 239

 233

 227

 238

 223

 241

 203

 210

 197

 237

 230

 228

 201

 210

 180

 212

 215

 203

 224

 331

 323

 317

 296

 296

 281

 290

 288

 293

 302

 299

 314

 310

 311

 307

 302

 295

 319

 320

 301

 294

 315

 328

 324

 313

 309

 297

 327

 323

 329

 357

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
#### Jorge CARMONA-OLVERA; Maria Carmona, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75525.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Jorge Carmona-Olvera, Atwater, CA, pro se.

Maria Carmona, Atwater, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Carmona-Olvera and his wife Maria Carmona, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review for substantial evidence, *see Rostomian v. INS,*210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Carmona-Olvera failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because he failed to establish a nexus between the economic hardship and general violence in Mexico and a protected ground for asylum. *See id.*(concluding that an asylum claim based on general civil strife or random violence is not sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution); *see also Ochave v. INS,*254 *784F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir.2001) (requiring alien to establish nexus between alleged persecution and protected ground).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §3620. Authority of Ambassador; independence of Commission regarding its Panama Canal responsibilities

#### (a) Authority of Ambassador

The United States Ambassador to the Republic of Panama shall have full responsibility for the coordination of the transfer to the Republic of Panama of those functions that are to be assumed by the Republic of Panama pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.

#### (b) Independence of Commission regarding its Panama Canal responsibilities

(1) The Commission shall not be subject to the direction or supervision of the United States Chief of Mission in the Republic of Panama with respect to the responsibilities of the Commission for the operation, management, or maintenance of the Panama Canal, as established in this chapter or any other Act or in the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements, except that the Commission shall keep the Ambassador fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of the Commission.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection, section 3927 of this title shall apply with respect to the activities of the Commission.

#### (c) Agreements for United States to provide post-transfer administrative services for certain employee benefits

(1) The Secretary of State may enter into one or more agreements to provide for the United States to furnish administrative services relating to the benefits described in paragraph (2) after December 31, 1999, and to establish appropriate procedures for providing advance funding for the services.

(2) The benefits referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) Pension, disability, and medical benefits provided by the Panama Canal Commission pursuant to section 3682 of this title.

(B) Compensation for work injuries covered by chapter 81 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 96–70, title I, §1110, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 459; Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXV, §3550(d)(4), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2074; Pub. L. 105–261, div. C, title XXXV, §3506, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2269.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–70, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 452, known as the Panama Canal Act of 1979, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3601 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1998—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–261 added subsec. (c).

1997—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 105–85 substituted "section 3927" for "section 2680a".
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 HIGH

 991

 984

 784

 762

 556

 681

 653

 686

 736

 868

 828

 928

 1,023

 1,062

 1,174

 1,314

 1,325

 1,274

 1,054

 846

 805

 1,005

 1,126

 1,193

 1,329

 1,363

 1,476

 1,439

 1,345

 1,414

 217

 218

 218

 224

 307

 245

 244

 294

 319

 305

 276

 251

 247

 253

 273

 308

 267

 243

 236

 263

 319

 352

 367

 367

 319

 238

 227

 230

 234

 245

 498

 465

 435

 436

 438

 416

 419

 457

 495

 505

 469

 483

 514

 577

 667

 730

 695

 637

 556

 541

 563

 627

 704

 726

 719

 705

 727

 754

 754

 726

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 27, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2397

DARYL SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND STATE POLICE; DAVID B. MITCHELL,

Secretary of the Department of State Police;

E. J. KRICKLER; HECTOR VENTO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-1716-WMN)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryl Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, Assistant

Attorney General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Daryl Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons state by the district court. See Smith v. Maryland State

Police, No. CA-02-1716-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 8 and Dec. 10, 2002). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.1
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Peter Porath, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Marwich II, Ltd.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 16, 2005


/s/ Peter Porath
--------------------------
Peter Porath
Vice-President, Chief Executive Officer
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

 739.03

 739.24

 739.48

 739.63

 739.86

 740.07

 741.06

 741.50

 741.85

 742.14

 742.38

 742.62

 742.86

 743.04

 743.23

 743.40

 743.56

 743.69

 743.83

 743.96

 744.09

 744.23

 744.42

 744.59

 744.77

 744.93

 745.07

 745.22

 745.33

 745.46

 1,983

 1,994

 2,005

 2,012

 2,023

 2,034

 2,083

 2,105

 2,123

 2,137

 2,149

 2,162

 2,174

 2,183

 2,193

 2,202

 2,210

 2,217

 2,224

 2,231

 2,238

 2,245

 2,255

 2,264

 2,274

 2,282

 2,290

 2,298

 2,304

 2,311

STORAGE

+10

+11

+11

+7

+11

+11

+49

+22

+18

+14

+12

+13

+12

+9

+10

+9

+8

+7

+7

+7

+7

+7

+10

+9

+10

+8

+8

+8

+6

+7

CHANGE

5

6

6

4

6

6

25

11

9

7

6

7

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

4

INFLOW

 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

 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

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2015 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 1, 2015

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +338 177 0 0

ACRE-FEET +338 351 0 0

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 0

 1,973

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30522

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MORRIS VIRDEAN WARNER, also known as Morris V. Warner,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-10-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Morris Virdean Warner appeals from his conviction of access device fraud

and bank fraud. Warner moves that appointed counsel be relieved and new

counsel be appointed; that motion is denied.

Warner contends that the district court erred by ordering him to pay

restitution to several banks that were not listed in the indictment and as to

which no evidence was produced at trial. He argues that the Mandatory Victim

Restitution Act (MVRA) limits restitution to harm caused by the conduct

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 1, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-30522 Document: 00511161082 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2010
No. 09-30522

underlying the offense of conviction. Because the bank fraud statute requires

that specific banks be targeted, Warner argues that only those banks could serve

as targets of his bank fraud scheme or artifice and that, therefore, only those

banks may be considered victims of the offense of conviction.

“This court reviews the legality of a restitution order de novo and the

amount of the restitution order for an abuse of discretion.” United States v.

Arledge, 553 F.3d 881, 897 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2028 (2009).

“[A]n order of restitution must be limited to losses caused by the specific conduct

underlying the offense of conviction.” Id. at 899. However, “[w]here a fraudulent

scheme is an element of the conviction, the court may award restitution for

‘actions pursuant to that scheme.’” United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 289

(5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). A scheme or artifice to defraud is an element

of bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

Warner was charged with one scheme to defraud the three banks named

in the redacted superseding indictment. The evidence presented at his

sentencing hearing indicated that he employed the same methods to deprive the

seven financial institutions not listed in the redacted superseding indictment

that he used against the three named institutions. He also committed his acts

against the nonlisted institutions during the time frame listed in the indictment.

The district court did not err by determining that the seven financial institutions

were victims for MVRA purposes, and the restitution portion of Warner’s

sentence is affirmed. See United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir.

2005); Cothran, 302 F.3d at 289. We also conclude that Warner’s motion to

substitute counsel is neither timely nor well-taken.

AFFIRMED. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL DENIED.

2

Case: 09-30522 Document: 00511161082 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2010
In the Senate of the United States, 

December 10 (legislative day, December 9), 2016. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 4245) entitled ‘‘An Act to exempt exportation of 

certain echinoderms and mollusks from licensing requirements under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.’’, do pass 

with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 

following: 

1 SECTION 1. EXPEDITED EXPORTATION OF CERTAIN SPE2 CIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the United 

5 States Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in this section 

6 as the ‘‘Director’’) shall issue a proposed rule to amend sec7 tion 14.92 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, to estab8 lish expedited procedures relating to the export permission 

9 requirements of section 9(d)(1) of the Endangered Species 
2 

† HR 4245 EAS 

1 Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538(d)(1)) for fish or wildlife de2 scribed in subsection (c). 

3 (b) EXEMPTIONS.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the rulemaking 

5 under subsection (a), subject to paragraph (2), the Di6 rector may provide an exemption from the require7 ment to procure— 

8 (A) permission under section 9(d)(1) of the 

9 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

10 1538(d)(1)); or 

11 (B) an export license under subpart I of 

12 part 14 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

13 (2) LIMITATIONS.—The Director shall not pro14 vide an exemption under paragraph (1)— 

15 (A) unless the Director determines that the 

16 exemption will not have a significant negative 

17 impact on the conservation of the species that is 

18 the subject of the exemption; or 

19 (B) to an entity that has been convicted of 

20 a violation of a Federal law relating to the im21 portation, transportation, or exportation of wild22 life during a period of not less than 5 years end23 ing on the date on which the entity applies for 

24 exemption under paragraph (1). 
3 

† HR 4245 EAS 

1 (c) COVERED FISH OR WILDLIFE.—The fish or wildlife 

2 described in this subsection are the species commonly known 

3 as sea urchins and sea cucumbers (including any product 

4 of a sea urchin or sea cucumber) that— 

5 (1) do not require a permit under part 16, 17, 

6 or 23 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations; and 

7 (2) are exported for purposes of human or ani8 mal consumption. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 4245 

AMENDMENT