alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernest W. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. HUFFMAN, Director; Warden Saunders; Nurse Willis, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6452.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Ernest W. Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

*373Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ernest W. Wright appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Wright v. Huffman,*No. CA-01-1910-AM (E.D.Va. Mar. 11, 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.*
### §28–1. Inclusion of certain surveys in labor requirements of mining claims; conditions and restrictions

The term "labor", as used in the third sentence of section 28 of this title, shall include, without being limited to, geological, geochemical and geophysical surveys conducted by qualified experts and verified by a detailed report filed in the county office in which the claim is located which sets forth fully (a) the location of the work performed in relation to the point of discovery and boundaries of the claim, (b) the nature, extent, and cost thereof, (c) the basic findings therefrom, and (d) the name, address, and professional background of the person or persons conducting the work. Such surveys, however, may not be applied as labor for more than two consecutive years or for more than a total of five years on any one mining claim, and each such survey shall be nonrepetitive of any previous survey on the same claim.

(Pub. L. 85–876, §1, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1701.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50497

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALBERTO ESPARZA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Jose Esparza, also 

known as Jose Rodriguez, also known as Jose Rodriguez-Esparza, also known 

as Jose Esparzarodriguez, also known as Jose Esparza-Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-846-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) for illegally 

reentering the United States following removal, Joes Alberto EsparzaRodriguez challenges the district court’s order declining to dismiss his 

indictment. He contends that the notice to appear for his original removal 

proceeding was defective, his prior removals were thus invalid, and they could 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50497 Document: 00515314761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2020
No. 19-50497

2

not be used to support his illegal reentry conviction. Additionally, EsparzaRodriguez contends that he satisfied or is excused from satisfying the § 1326(d) 

requirements for collaterally attacking his removal order, such as the 

requirement that he show exhaustion of any administrative remedies. As

Esparza-Rodriguez concedes, his arguments are foreclosed by United States v. 

Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 

2019) (No. 19-6588), and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), 

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779).

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98, we held that the notice to appear 

was not deficient merely because it did not specify a date for the hearing, any 

such purported deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of 

jurisdiction, and the appellant could not collaterally attack his notice to appear 

without first exhausting his administrative remedies. Esparza-Rodriguez’s 

arguments are, thus, foreclosed. See id.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969), and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED as moot.

 Case: 19-50497 Document: 00515314761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                          15,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,331
<INVENTORY>                                     83,858
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,091
<PP&E>                                         477,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 220,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 548,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   548,332
<SALES>                                        371,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,689
<CGS>                                          317,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  317,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,046
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (808)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,881
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.88


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23631]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster <greek-i>3638]


State of South Carolina (Amendment <greek-i>1)

    In accordance with a notice received from the Department of 
Homeland Security--Federal Emergency Management Agency--effective 
October 11, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to 
establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning September 
6, 2004, and continuing through October 11, 2004.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is December 6, 2004 and for 
economic injury the deadline is July 7, 2005.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008).

    Dated: October 14, 2004.
Cheri L. Cannon,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-23631 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
From: <Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov>

To: Jennifer ONeil <Jennifer.ONeil@erg.com>

Date: 2/18/2011 3:13 PM

Subject: OMB E-mail 19 for docket

Attachments: C.xlsx; A-1 to A-3.xlsx; A-6 to A-8.xlsx; B-3 to B-5.xlsx

----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:12 PM

-----

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 02/01/2011 03:11 PM

Subject: Cost/ER/Secondary Impacts Memo [appx 1 of 4]

Cortney,

Attached are several of the appendices for the Impacts memo that I sent

earlier today. This is the first of 4 e-mails containing the

appendices.

Thanks!

Brian

(See attached file: C.xlsx)(See attached file: A-1 to A-3.xlsx)(See

attached file: A-6 to A-8.xlsx)(See attached file: B-3 to B-5.xlsx)
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2006

##### U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1739-A

# Blue Mountain and The Gas Rocks:  Rear-Arc Dome Clusters on the Alaska Peninsula

### *By* Wes Hildreth, Judy Fierstein, and Andrew T. Calvert

### 2007

The Gas Rocks on Becharof Lake (from Figure 10)

**Abstract**

Behind the single-file chain of stratovolcanoes on the Alaska Peninsula, independent rear-arc vents for mafic magmas are uncommon, and for silicic magmas rarer still. We report here the characteristics, compositions, and ages of two andesite-dacite dome clusters and of several nearby basaltic units, all near Becharof Lake and 15 to 20 km behind the volcanic front. Blue Mountain consists of 13 domes (58-68 weight percent SiO2) and The Gas Rocks of three domes (62-64.5 weight percent SiO2) and a mafic cone (52 weight percent SiO2). All 16 domes are amphibole-biotite-plagioclase felsite, and nearly all are phenocryst rich and quartz bearing. Although the two dome clusters are lithologically and chemically similar and only 25 km apart, they differ strikingly in age. The main central dome of Blue Mountain yields an 40Ar/39Ar age of 632±7 ka, and two of the Gas Rocks domes ages of 25.7±1.4 and 23.3±1.2 ka. Both clusters were severely eroded by glaciation; surviving volumes of Blue Mountain domes total ~1 km3, and of the Gas Rocks domes 0.035 km3. Three basaltic vents lie close to The Gas Rocks, another lies just south of Blue Mountain, and a fifth is near the north shore of Becharof Lake. A basaltic andesite vent 6 km southeast of The Gas Rocks appears to be a flank vent of the arc-front center Mount Peulik. The basalt of Ukinrek Maars has been called transitionally alkalic, but all the other basaltic rocks are subalkaline. CO2-rich gas emissions near the eponymous Gas Rocks domes are not related to the 25-ka dacite dome cluster but, rather, to intracrustal degassing of intrusive basalt, one batch of which erupted 3 km away in 1977. The felsic and mafic vents all lie along or near the Bruin Bay Fault where it intersects a broad transverse structural zone marked by topographic, volcanologic, and geophysical discontinuities.

----

Download this paper as a 27-page PDF file (pp1739a.pdf; 11.4 MB)

For questions about the content of this report, contact Wes Hildreth

Suggested citation and version history

Back to *Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2006*

----

Download a free copy of the current version of Adobe Reader.

| Help   | PDF help   | Western reports main page | Western Professional Papers || Geologic   Division | Alaska Science Center   |  Alaska Volcano Observatory   |

----

This report is available only on the Web

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey	URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1739/a/	Page Contact Information: Michael Diggles	Page Last Modified: December 12, 2007

----
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0679

SAT Date: 7/16/2013

Print Date: 9/3/2014

Related cases:

 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 2 Health: PMN ; Eco: intact material; significant mitigation of toxicity expe

i.e.,~12x

2 3 Health: Eco: high concern for toxicity of incomplete incinerat

products to terrestrial organisms

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 1 1 PMN

3 2 2 Deg Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation For Drinking water and 

inhalation

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: LUNG OVERLOAD; LUNG

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0679

S = Disp.

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)
H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90-99 via sorption 

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Deg Pdt P3B2

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes (pchem). Concern for lung 

toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers and lung toxicity 

from cationic binding to lung membranes.

For the potential incomplete incineration product, based on test data for 

concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral 

NOAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 

mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 

mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged 

by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also 

concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 6.3

daphnid 48-h LC50 60

green algal 96-h EC50 5.1

fish _ chronic value 0.35

daphnid _ chronic 

value

4.3

algal _ chronic 

value

1.5

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for polycationic polymers with 

 = dispersible in water at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations 

based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as 

CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

high concern for toxicity of incomplete incineration products to terrestrial organisms

Factors Values Comments
Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

420 with mitigation

SARs polycationic polymers

SAR Class polymer-cationicEcotox Category Polycationic Polymers

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
#### § 207.1 Applicability of part.

Part 207 applies to proceedings of the Commission under section 516A and title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1303, 1516A and 1671-1677n) (the Act), other than investigations under section 783 (19 U.S.C. 1677n), which will be conducted pursuant to procedures specified by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

[61 FR 37829, July 22, 1996]
PUBLIC LAW 106–365—OCT. 27, 2000 114 STAT. 1409

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2879:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–448 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–334 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 145 (1999): Nov. 9, considered and passed House.

Vol. 146 (2000): Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Oct. 10, House concurred in Senate amendment.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):

Oct. 27, Presidential statement.

Æ

Public Law 106–365

106th Congress

An Act

To provide for the placement at the Lincoln Memorial of a plaque commemorating

the speech of Martin Luther King, Jr., known as the ‘‘I Have A Dream’’ speech.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE AT LINCOLN MEMORIAL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall install

in the area of the Lincoln Memorial in the District of Columbia

a suitable plaque to commemorate the speech of Martin Luther

King, Jr., known as the ‘‘I Have A Dream’’ speech.

(b) RELATION TO COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.—The

Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) shall apply

to the design and placement of the plaque within the area of

the Lincoln Memorial.

SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept and expand

contributions toward the cost of preparing and installing the plaque,

without further appropriation. Federal funds may be used to design,

procure, or install the plaque.

Approved October 27, 2000.

Applicability.

40 USC 1003

note.

Oct. 27, 2000

[H.R. 2879]
#### § 191.182 Zone-restricted merchandise.

Merchandise in a foreign trade zone for the purposes specified in § 191.181 shall be given status as zone-restricted merchandise on proper application (see § 146.44 of this chapter).
### §61f–14. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61f–14 was editorially reclassified as section 6617 of this title.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Global
Industries, Ltd.'s financial statements for the nine-months ended December 31,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<Multiplier  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                            6,295
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    55,461
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 93,851
<PP&E>                          196,425
<DEPRECIATION>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  326,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            52,680
<BONDS>                          90,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            382
<OTHER-SE>                      163,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    326,335
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 56,776
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    41,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  11,521
<INCOME-TAX>                      3,449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               8,072
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      8,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1398 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1398

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to fully fund 
40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for programs under part 
                             B of that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2003

 Ms. McCollum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to fully fund 
40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for programs under part 
                             B of that Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Achieving Our IDEA Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY FUNDING OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
              EDUCATION ACT.

    Section 611(j) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(20 U.S.C. 1411(j)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(j) Mandatory Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
part, other than section 619, there are authorized to be appropriated, 
and there are appropriated--
            ``(1) $11,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
            ``(2) $13,920,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
            ``(3) $16,440,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
            ``(4) $18,960,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
            ``(5) $21,480,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
            ``(6) $24,000,000,000, or such sums as may be necessary to 
        fully fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for 
        programs under this part, other than section 619, whichever is 
        less, for fiscal year 2009; and
            ``(7) such sums as may be necessary to fully fund 40 
        percent of the average per pupil expenditure for programs under 
        this part, other than section 619, for each subsequent fiscal 
        year.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Berry Goldstein, Appellant, v. William T. Flaherty, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-227V

Filed: November 10, 2014

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

KRYSTYN SNYDER, *

 * Ruling on Entitlement; Tdap;

Petitioner, * Brachial Neuritis

 *

v. *

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

Respondent. *

 *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey A. Golvash, Brennan, Robins & Daley, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On March 25, 2014, Krystyn Snyder (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2

42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006). 

The petition alleges that as a result of receiving a Tetanus-diptheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”)

vaccine on December 22, 2012, she developed Brachial Neuritis (“BN”). Petition at ¶¶ 3, 9.

 

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, 

the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 

Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 

Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any 

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in 

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the 

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 

18(b).

2

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to 

individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.
2

On November 7, 2014, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [Respondent’s Report”], in 

which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report 

at 2. Specifically, respondent concluded, based on the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

of the Vaccine Injury Table, that BN is an injury on the Vaccine Injury Table for tetanuscontaining vaccines and that contemporaneous medical records support that the onset of 

petitioner’s pain fell within the Table’s timeframe for a presumed vaccine injury. Id. at 3-4. 

Respondent agrees that petitioner’s symptoms and the EMG study results are consistent with a 

diagnosis of BN, and that several of petitioner’s treating neurologists believed that her BN was 

most likely caused by the Tdap vaccination. Id. at 4. Accordingly, respondent concedes that

petitioner “meets the criteria for a Table injury of BN following a tetanus vaccine.” Id.

In light of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that petitioner 

is entitled to compensation. 

s/ Thomas L. Gowen

 Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master