alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1345. Coordination and consultation with affected State and local governments

#### (a) Recommendations regarding size, time, or location of proposed lease sales

Any Governor of any affected State or the executive of any affected local government in such State may submit recommendations to the Secretary regarding the size, timing, or location of a proposed lease sale or with respect to a proposed development and production plan. Prior to submitting recommendations to the Secretary, the executive of any affected local government in any affected State must forward his recommendations to the Governor of such State.

#### (b) Time for submission of recommendations

Such recommendations shall be submitted within sixty days after notice of such proposed lease sale or after receipt of such development and production plan.

#### (c) Acceptance or rejection of recommendations

The Secretary shall accept recommendations of the Governor and may accept recommendations of the executive of any affected local government if he determines, after having provided the opportunity for consultation, that they provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the well-being of the citizens of the affected State. For purposes of this subsection, a determination of the national interest shall be based on the desirability of obtaining oil and gas supplies in a balanced manner and on the findings, purposes, and policies of this subchapter. The Secretary shall communicate to the Governor, in writing, the reasons for his determination to accept or reject such Governor's recommendations, or to implement any alternative means identified in consultation with the Governor to provide for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the well-being of the citizens of the affected State.

#### (d) Finality of acceptance or rejection of recommendations

The Secretary's determination that recommendations provide, or do not provide, for a reasonable balance between the national interest and the well-being of the citizens of the affected State shall be final and shall not, alone, be a basis for invalidation of a proposed lease sale or a proposed development and production plan in any suit or judicial review pursuant to section 1349 of this title, unless found to be arbitrary or capricious.

#### (e) Cooperative agreements

The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with affected States for purposes which are consistent with this subchapter and other applicable Federal law. Such agreements may include, but need not be limited to, the sharing of information (in accordance with the provisions of section 1352 of this title), the joint utilization of available expertise, the facilitating of permitting procedures, joint planning and review, and the formation of joint surveillance and monitoring arrangements to carry out applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and stipulations relevant to outer Continental Shelf operations both onshore and offshore.

(Aug. 7, 1953, ch. 345, §19, as added Pub. L. 95–372, title II, §208, Sept. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 652.)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3280

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

John Herman Soper

Defendant Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: March 6, 2023

Filed: March 9, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

John Soper appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded

guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,

1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.
and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

sentence was unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing

sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion

standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor,

gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error

of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a

sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119,

1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when the district court has varied below the

Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in

not varying further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
### Streamwater Quality Data from the 2002 Hayman, Hinman, and Missionary Ridge Wildfires, Colorado, 2003

By: Anthony J. RanalliMichael R. Stevens**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds109

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2996 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback claims. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2005 

Mr. BRADY of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 

drawback claims. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN 

4 DRAWBACK CLAIMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 514 of 

6 the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other pro7 vision of law, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protec8 tion shall, not later than 90 days after the date of the 

9 enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the draw10 back claims, as filed, that are described in subsection (c). 
2 

•HR 2996 IH 

1 (b) PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS DUE.—Any amounts due 

2 pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of the claims 

3 described in subsection (c) shall be paid not later than 

4 90 days after the date of such liquidation or reliquidation. 

5 (c) DRAWBACK CLAIMS.—The drawback claims re6 ferred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

Drawback claim number Filing 

date 

AA6–0246667–1 11/03/94 

AA6–0246689–5 12/02/94 

AA6–0246690–3 11/10/94 

AA6–0302619–3 01/21/97 

Æ
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00071

- CV

IN RE GEICO CHOICE I NSURANCE COMPANY

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(d). The stay

ordered by this Court on March 8, 2017 is lifted.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition Denied

Opinion delivered and filed October 25, 2017

[OT06]
Exhibit 32.1

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In  connection  with the  filing  with the  United  States  Securities  and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB/A for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2005 (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies that
(i)  in my  capacity  as an  officer  of the  Company,  (ii)  to my  own  actual
knowledge, and (iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     The  above  certification  is  given as of the  date of the  Report  and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have executed this  Certificate  on
May 15, 2008.



                                               By:   /s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Bruce J. Haber
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leonard Wolochen, Appellant.

Pursuant to remand of the Court of Appeals *(People*v. *Wolochen,*8 N Y 2d 1044), the prior orders of this court dismissing the appeal and denying appellant’s motion to dispense with printing and to assign counsel, are vacated. Motion to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on appellant’s typewritten brief, which shall include a copy of the opinion, if any, of the court below. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is' enlarged to the May Term, beginning April 24, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. *980Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Anthony P. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York 13, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §2423. Loan guarantees

#### (a) Authority

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary may make available to lenders for a project meeting the eligibility criteria established in section 2422 of this title loan guarantees to supplement private-sector or lender financing for the project.

#### (b) Terms and limitations

#### (1) In general

Loan guarantees under this section for a project shall be on such terms and conditions and contain such covenants, representations, warranties, and requirements as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect the financial interests of the United States.

#### (2) Amount

Loan guarantees by the Secretary shall not exceed an amount equal to 90 percent of the cost of the project that is the subject of the loan guarantee, as estimated at the time at which the loan guarantee is issued.

#### (3) Interest rate

An obligation shall bear interest at a rate that does not exceed a level that the Secretary determines to be appropriate, taking into account the prevailing rate of interest in the private sector for similar loans and risks.

#### (4) Amortization

A loan guarantee under this section shall provide for complete amortization of the loan guarantee within not more than 40 years.

#### (5) Nonsubordination

An obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.

#### (c) Prepayment and refinancing

Any prepayment or refinancing terms on a loan guarantee shall be negotiated between the non-Federal borrower and the lender with the consent of the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 109–451, title II, §204, Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3358.)
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00464-CR

IN RE Johnathan TAYLOR

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 30, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 22, 2010, Jonathan Taylor, relator, filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus,

asking this court to direct the trial court to set a trial date in the underlying criminal proceeding.

Counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the trial court. We conclude that appointed

counsel for relator is also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issue presented.

Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se

petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s consideration. See

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-7592, styled State of Texas v. 1

Johnathan Taylor, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.
04-10-00464-CR

id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.

proceeding). Consequently, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Therefore, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-
### §1861. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–367, §2(b), July 31, 1986, 100 Stat. 774

Section, Pub. L. 95–372, title VI, §601, Sept. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 693, required Secretary of the Interior, within six months of Sept. 18, 1978, and in his annual report thereafter, to report to Comptroller General on shut-in and flaring oil and gas wells and required Comptroller General, within six months after receipt of report, to review and evaluate methodology used by Secretary in allowing wells to be shut-in or flare natural gas and submit his findings and recommendations to Congress.
### §3796kk–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796kk–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10513 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §8851. Model demonstration biomass energy facilities; establishment, public inspection, etc.; authorization of appropriations

(a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall establish not more than ten model demonstration biomass energy facilities for purposes of exhibiting the most advanced technology available for producing biomass energy. Such facilities and information regarding the operation of such facilities shall be available for public inspection, and, to the extent practicable, such facilities shall be established in various regions in the United States. Such facilities may be established in cooperation with appropriate departments or agencies of the States, or appropriate in various regions in the United States. Such facilities may be established in cooperation with appropriate departments or agencies of the States, or appropriate departments, agencies, or other instrumentalities of the United States.

(b) For purposes of carrying out subsection (a), there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §251, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 705.)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30888 

Conference Calendar

__________________

NOBLE MARSHALL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DUNCAN S. KEMP; JEFFERSON D. HUGHES,

Criminal Judge; JAMES F. KUHN, Judge;

PAT DUNN; CLARA E. TOOMBS; SCOTT SLEDGE;

JOHN J. DAHMER; CYNTHIA JOHNSON;

MICHAEL PAWLUS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-93-2359-H

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Noble Marshall appeals from

the district court's denial of his motions for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. 

On appeal, Marshall can present no legal points arguable on

their merits, and the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 
No. 95-30888

-2-

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We caution

Marshall that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Marshall

is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court.

 APPEAL DISMISSED.
### §524. Cooperation with irrigation districts, etc., in construction of reservoirs and canals

In carrying out the provisions of the said reclamation Act, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, upon such terms as may be agreed upon, to cooperate with irrigation districts, water-users' associations, corporations, entrymen, or water users for the construction or use of such reservoirs, canals, or ditches as may be advantageously used by the Government and irrigation districts, water-users' associations, corporations, entrymen, or water users for impounding, delivering, and carrying water for irrigation purposes: Provided, That the title to and management of the works so constructed shall be subject to the provisions of section 498 of this title: Provided further, That water shall not be furnished from any such reservoir or delivered through any such canal or ditch to any one landowner in excess of an amount sufficient to irrigate one hundred and sixty acres: Provided, That nothing contained in sections 523 to 525 of this title shall be held or construed as enlarging or attempting to enlarge the right of the United States, under existing law, to control the waters of any stream in any State.

(Feb. 21, 1911, ch. 141, §2, 36 Stat. 926.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The said reclamation Act, referred to in text, probably means act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.
#### § 3.605 Enforcement procedures.

The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 24 CFR part 1.

[65 FR 52880, Aug. 30, 2000]
#### § 242.32 Covenant against liens.

The mortgage shall contain a covenant against the creation by the mortgagor of any liens against the property, except for such liens as may be approved by HUD.
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Jimmy Whang, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          STRATS(SM) Trust For Goldman Sachs Group Securities, Series 2004-8
          (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
          servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year
          covered by this annual report of the Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          trust agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the trust agreement and based upon
          my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
          agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and
          Trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
          and

     5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          compliance by the Trustee and the Depositor with the minimum
          servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an
          independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
          compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
          Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the trust agreement
          that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ Jimmy Whang
----------------------------
Name:   Jimmy Whang
Title:  Director
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

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING, 09-0972 MHP 1

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

LOREN D. STEWART

Assistant Federal Public Defender

19th Floor Federal Building – Box 36106

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant Laereman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRANK LAEREMAN,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-0972 MHP

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING SENTENCING

Current Hearing Date: July 26, 2010

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

Proposed Hearing Date: August 23, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

The above-captioned case is currently on calendar at 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 2010, for

sentencing. Lead counsel for Mr. Laereman, Geoffrey Hansen, had a family emergency out-ofstate and is unavailable until next week. Because he has not been in the office, Mr. Hansen was

not able to schedule a meeting between Mr. Laereman and a psychologist. United States

Probation Officer Charlie Mabie is waiting for the report of the psychologist to complete his final

pre-sentence report. Accordingly, counsel for Mr. Laereman respectfully requests that the Court

vacate the July 26th hearing and add the matter to the Court’s calendar on August 23, 2010, at

9:00 a.m.

//

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 28 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 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

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING, 09-0972 MHP 2

Undersigned defense counsel has confirmation from AUSA Tom Moore of his

availability for the proposed date, and also confirmed with Your Honor’s Courtroom Deputy that

the Court is available on the proposed hearing date and time. Accordingly, the parties jointly

request that the Court vacate the July 26, 2010, hearing date and re-set the matter for August 23,

2010, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

 July 15 , 2010 /s/ 

DATED TOM MOORE

Assistant United States Attorney

 July 15, 2010 /s/ 

DATED LOREN STEWART for GEOFFREY HANSEN

Attorneys for Frank Laereman

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown, the status conference now scheduled for Monday, July 26, 2010 is

vacated. The matter shall be added to the Court’s calendar on Monday, August 23, 2010 at

9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

7/22/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 28 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 2