alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3052. Definitions

In this chapter:

#### (1) Adjacent site

The term "adjacent site" means a site that borders a boundary line of National Forest System land.

#### (2) Cultural items

The term "cultural items" has the meaning given the term in section 3001 of this title, except that the term does not include human remains.

#### (3) Human remains

The term "human remains" means the physical remains of the body of a person of Indian ancestry.

#### (4) Indian

The term "Indian" means an individual who is a member of an Indian tribe.

#### (5) Indian tribe

The term "Indian tribe" means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or other community the name of which is included on a list published by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 5131 of this title.

#### (6) Lineal descendant

The term "lineal descendant" means an individual that can trace, directly and without interruption, the ancestry of the individual through the traditional kinship system of an Indian tribe, or through the common law system of descent, to a known Indian, the human remains, funerary objects, or other sacred objects of whom are claimed by the individual.

#### (7) National Forest System

The term "National Forest System" has the meaning given the term in section 1609(a) of title 16.

#### (8) Reburial site

The term "reburial site" means a specific physical location at which cultural items or human remains are reburied.

#### (9) Traditional and cultural purpose

The term "traditional and cultural purpose", with respect to a definable use, area, or practice, means that the use, area, or practice is identified by an Indian tribe as traditional or cultural because of the long-established significance or ceremonial nature of the use, area, or practice to the Indian tribe.

(Pub. L. 110–234, title VIII, §8102, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1287; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VIII, §8102, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2048.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

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

#### Effective Date

Section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of Title 7, Agriculture.
§ 13.5 Protection from competition. ( a ) The head of the Interior bureau or office shall protect the blind operator of the vending facility against direct competition from other vendors or vending machines on property which the head of the Interior bureau or office controls. Other vendors or vending machines shall be considered in direct competition with vending facilities permitted under the regulations in this part if they sell or dispense articles which are similar or identical to those on sale at the vending facilities in such proximity to the vending facility as to attract customers who might otherwise patronize the vending facilities.
( b ) After a permit has been issued under the regulations in this part to a State licensing agency for operation of a vending facility, the head of the Interior bureau or office, except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, shall take action to terminate, as soon as possible and with minimum interruption to the service afforded customers, any existing competitive arrangement for the sale of any articles similar to or identical to those sold or to be sold under the permit. Notice of such termination shall be given as required under the terms of the existing arrangement, or if none is provided, a notice of not less than 30 days shall be given in writing.
( c ) Existing arrangements with respect to vending machines need not be terminated if such vending machines are moved at the expense of their operators to locations elsewhere on the property which are noncompetitive with a blind-operated vending facility, or if the income from such machines is assigned to the blind operator.
( d ) This section shall not apply to the sale and service of food and other articles considered as food and usually sold in connection with meals by cafeterias, restaurants, or similar food dispensing establishments.
Exhibit 99.1



                              Annual Certification



     Re:   Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-2 (the "Trust"),
           Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-2, issued
           pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as May
           1, 2005 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and among
           Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc, as depositor (the
           "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee
           (the "Trustee"), First NLC Financial Services, LLC, as
           responsible party (the "Responsible Party"), MILA, Inc., as
           responsible party (the "Responsible Party"), Accredited Home
           Lenders, Inc., as responsible party (the "Responsible Party"),
           and HomEq Servicing Corporation, as servicer (the "Servicer")

      I, Arthur Q. Lyon, certify to the Depositor, the Trustee and their
      officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that
      they will rely upon this certification, that:

            A review of the activities of the Servicer during the 2005 calendar
            year and the Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing
            Agreement has been made under my supervision, the Servicer has
            complied with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material
            respects and, to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
            Servicer has materially fulfilled all of its obligations under the
            Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout such calendar year.



      Date: March 30, 2006



      HomEq Servicing Corporation


      /s/ Arthur Q. Lyon
      ---------------------------
      Arthur Q. Lyon
      President
2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-5-2009 

# B u sch v . M arple N ewt own S ch
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2967

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B us ch v . M a rp le N ewt own S ch" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1107. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1107U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 07- 2967
DONNA KAY B US CH , I N H ER I ND I VI DU AL C APA CI TY AND AS T HE P AR E NT AND NE XT F RI E ND OF WES L E Y B US CH , A M I NOR

v . M AR PLE NEW TOW N SCH OO L DI STRI CT; M ARP LE NEWTOW N SC HOO L DI S TRI CT

BO A RD O F D I RE CT O RS; RO BE RT M E S AR OS , S UP E RI NT E NDE NT OF T HE M AR PLE NEW TOW N SCH OO L DI STRI CT; T HOMAS CO OK, P RI NC I P AL OF CU L BE RT S ON E L E M E NT AR Y S CH OOL D onna K ayB us ch,

A p p e l l a n t
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 02094 ( D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R
. B ar cl aySur r i ck)

A r gued M ay5, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges
.

OR DE R A M E NDI NG OP I NI ON

I tappea r i ng t hatt he opi ni on i s s ued byt hi s C our ton J une 1, 2009 om i t t ed the fi nal foot not e fr om t he di s s ent i ng i n par tand conc ur r i ng i n par tpor t i on of t he opi ni on,A t th e d ire c tio n o f th e C o u rt, i t is h e re b yO R D E R E D th a t th e C ler k sh a ll file an amended opi ni on. F o r th e C o u rt,
M arc ia M
. W aldro n , C lerk D at ed: J une 5, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40858 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LEOCADIO NIETO-ZAPATA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-80-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Leocadio Nieto-Zapata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Although given notice, Nieto has filed no response to the motion to dismiss. We have independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,No. -2- counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
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

 589

 611

 604

 614

 608

 614

 600

 594

 590

 585

 599

 602

 598

 605

 610

 611

 601

 603

 606

 611

 610

 615

 612

 605

 613

 626

 634

 596

 616

 666

 677

 575

 569

 581

 572

 570

 571

 573

 568

 566

 560

 561

 582

 571

 592

 598

 592

 590

 586

 588

 590

 589

 583

 586

 582

 592

 592

 546

 436

 539

 544

 616

 580

 586

 587

 586

 585

 584

 581

 578

 573

 572

 579

 587

 585

 597

 603

 600

 594

 592

 593

 598

 601

 596

 594

 596

 600

 605

 586

 540

 580

 599

 628

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 2, 2021

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 21, 2020

t1014

Order 

Clerk

October 21, 2020

160551

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160551

COA: 343255 

Saginaw CC: 16-042719-FC

ROBERT LANCE PROPP,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied People v Kennedy, 502 Mich 

206 (2018), when it affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion for 

expert funding; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that evidence of 

other acts of domestic violence is admissible under MCL 768.27b regardless of whether it 

might be otherwise inadmissible under the hearsay rules of evidence. The time allowed 

for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Table 23
                                           U. S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
                                                   Central Valley Operations Office

                                           Madera Canal and Millerton Lake
                                                           2006
Monthly Deliveries in AF

    Water Users        Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec   Total

MADERA CANAL

Chowchilla WD             0    4594    6887   19054   25716   27100   25555   15315   13057    2977       0       0  140255
Madera ID                 0     756    2358   24558   29424   25720   26213   14267   10888    8401    6411    1152  150148
Soquel                    0       0       0       1       0       2    4725    7663    2567     923       2       1   15884

Total                     0    5350    9245   43613   55140   52822   56493   37245   26512   12301    6413    1153  306287


MILLERTON LAKE

County of Madera          2       2       2       3       3       5       5       6       5       3       2       1      39
Fresno County # 18        6       6       6       6      14      23      20      20      18      13      10       6     148
Gravelly Ford WD          0       0       0    1098    1168    3006    1391    1837    1467    1126      59       0   11152
                                 .
Total                     8       8       8    1107    1185    3034    1416    1863    1490    1142      71       7   11339


*  Data supplied by Fresno Field Division, Contracts Administration Division
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 25, 2019

No. 04-18-00447-CR

Raul Daniel NORRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR9017

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due January 10, 2019, but neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time was filed. Accordingly, this court sent a notice to appellant on January 14, 

2019, advising that the brief was past due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). On January 17, 2019, 

in response to our notice, appellant filed a letter asking that this court grant him a sixty-day 

extension of time in which to file his brief. 

First, we advise appellant that future requests for extension of time must be filed in 

accordance with Rule 10.5(b)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs 

motions for extension of time — except motions to extend time to file a notice of appeal — in 

the appellate courts. See id. R. 10.5(b)(1); see also id. 38.6(d). Second, we will construe 

appellant’s letter as a motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. Finally, after review, we 

GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART appellant’s motion for extension of time. More 

specifically, we DENY appellant’s request for a sixty-day extension, but GRANT appellant a 

thirty-day extension of time in which to file appellant’s brief. We ORDER appellant to file his 

brief in this court on or before February 11, 2019. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
### SUBCHAPTER IV—HEALTH SERVICES FOR URBAN INDIANS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter was in the original title V of Pub. L. 94–437. Title IV of Pub. L. 94–437 is classified to subchapter III–A of this chapter.
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

 130.52

 130.71

 130.73

 130.78

 130.68

 130.59

 130.59

 130.97

 130.88

 130.73

 130.64

 130.72

 130.84

 130.75

 130.75

 130.73

 130.74

 130.66

 130.68

 130.68

 130.59

 130.67

 130.58

 130.72

 130.99

 130.80

 130.79

 130.61

 130.85

 130.97

 635

 657

 659

 665

 654

 643

 643

 686

 676

 659

 649

 658

 671

 662

 662

 659

 660

 651

 654

 654

 643

 652

 642

 658

 689

 667

 666

 645

 673

 686

STORAGE

-13

+22

+2

+6

-11

-11

+0

+43

-10

-17

-10

+9

+13

-9

+0

-3

+1

-9

+3

+0

-11

+9

-10

+16

+31

-22

-1

-21

+28

+13

CHANGE

443

473

469

467

485

538

583

599

570

555

562

589

591

583

590

582

575

580

600

607

665

701

676

677

631

581

558

567

577

556

INFLOW

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

PUTAH

 406

 418

 424

 420

 447

 500

 538

 532

 531

 520

 523

 540

 540

 544

 546

 540

 529

 540

 553

 563

 626

 651

 636

 624

 571

 547

 515

 534

 519

 505

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .28

 .31

 .37

 .38

 .37

 .34

 .42

 .43

 .25

 .34

 .28

 .30

 .30

 .26

 .24

 .37

 .48

 .42

 .46

 .33

 .43

 .52

 .49

 .49

 .39

 .43

 .40

 .35

 .28

 .37

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

JUNE 2006 RUN DATE: 08/15/2006

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +38 17,230 15,882 1,290 40 11.08 .00

ACRE-FEET +38 34,176 31,502 2,559 79

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 2,559

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 31,502

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2005 37.83

 648

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
#### § 3.5 Application.

Each application for a permit should be filed with the Secretary having jurisdiction, and must be accompanied by a definite outline of the proposed work, indicating the name of the institution making the request, the date proposed for beginning the field work, the length of time proposed to be devoted to it, and the person who will have immediate charge of the work. The application must also contain an exact statement of the character of the work, whether examination, excavation, or gathering, and the public museum in which the collections made under the permit are to be permanently preserved. The application must be accompanied by a sketch plan or description of the particular site or area to be examined, excavated, or searched, so definite that it can be located on the map with reasonable accuracy.
#### § 3205.13 May I withdraw my application for a direct use lease?

You may withdraw your application for a direct use lease any time before issuance of a lease.
#### § 2565.9 Disposition of records on completion of trust.

The trustee's duties having been completed, the books of accounts of all his receipts and expenditures, together with a record of his proceedings as provided in § 2565.8 of this part with all papers, other books, and everything pertaining to such townsite in his possession and all evidence of his official acts shall be transmitted to the Bureau of Land Management to become a part of the records thereof, excepting from such papers, however, in case the town is incorporated, the subdivisional plat of the townsite, which he will deliver to the municipal authorities of the town, together with a copy of the townsite tract book or books, taking a receipt therefore to be transmitted to the Bureau of Land Management.

(Sec. 11, 26 Stat. 1099; 48 U.S.C. 355)
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20581

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MORRIS SYLVESTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-95-84-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Morris Sylvester appeals his conviction for conspiracy, wire

fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Sylvester contends that

the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence

that Kirkwood USA Enterprises (“Kirkwood”) did not file income

tax information for the year 1992. Sylvester contends that the

Government produced the evidence to create an inference that he 

had knowledge of Kirkwood’s illegal activities. Sylvester 
No. 96-20581

-2-

contends that this evidence was irrelevant because he was not the

listed owner of Kirkwood and had no duty to report to the

Internal Revenue Service. 

“We review questions concerning the admissibility of

evidence for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Giraldi, 86

F.3d 1368, 1375 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). The district

court’s admission of the evidence was not an abuse of discretion. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 3163.6 Injunction and specific performance. ( a ) In addition to any other remedy under this part or any mineral leasing law, the Attorney General of the United States or his designee may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States to: ( 1 ) Restrain any violation of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty and Management Act or any mineral leasing law of the United States; or
( 2 ) Compel the taking of any action required by or under the Act or any mineral leasing law of the United States.
( b ) A civil action described in paragraph (a) may be brought only in the United States district court of the judicial district wherein the act, omission or transaction constituting a violation under the Act or any other mineral leasing law occurred, or wherein the defendant is found or transacts business.
[49 FR 37368, Sept. 21, 1984]
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

 888

 837

 840

 860

 843

 788

 746

 738

 711

 715

 695

 675

 528

 498

 499

 505

 516

 535

 579

 626

 655

 670

 670

 660

 650

 646

 667

 678

 685

 687

 687

 802

 799

 812

 838

 789

 754

 731

 699

 698

 678

 677

 534

 499

 452

 457

 495

 486

 507

 533

 575

 621

 654

 657

 637

 626

 617

 646

 659

 676

 662

 663

 840

 817

 825

 852

 812

 772

 739

 722

 704

 699

 688

 601

 507

 477

 471

 500

 509

 528

 561

 599

 637

 660

 663

 644

 644

 632

 653

 667

 681

 678

 682

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 4, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER