alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1996. Loans to resident aliens

Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter limiting the making and insuring of loans to citizens of the United States, the Secretary may make and insure loans under this chapter to aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.]: Provided, That no loans may be made or insured under this chapter to such aliens until the Secretary issues regulations establishing the terms and conditions under which such aliens may receive loans: Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit the regulations to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate at least thirty days prior to the date the regulations are published in the Federal Register.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §348, as added Pub. L. 96–438, §2(3), Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1872.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title III of Pub. L. 87–128, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 307, known as the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1921 of this title and Tables.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, referred to in text, is act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, which is classified principally to chapter 12 (§1101 et seq.) of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of Title 8 and Tables.
#### § 516.69 Introduction.

This subpart prescribes procedures for cooperation with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) when OSC is investigating alleged prohibited personnel practices or other allegations of improper or illegal conduct within DA activities.
### §19. Consideration of costs and benefits and antitrust laws

#### (a) Costs and benefits

#### (1) In general

Before promulgating a regulation under this chapter or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph (3)), the Commission shall consider the costs and benefits of the action of the Commission.

#### (2) Considerations

The costs and benefits of the proposed Commission action shall be evaluated in light of—

(A) considerations of protection of market participants and the public;

(B) considerations of the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets;

(C) considerations of price discovery;

(D) considerations of sound risk management practices; and

(E) other public interest considerations.

#### (3) Applicability

This subsection does not apply to the following actions of the Commission:

(A) An order that initiates, is part of, or is the result of an adjudicatory or investigative process of the Commission.

(B) An emergency action.

(C) A finding of fact regarding compliance with a requirement of the Commission.

#### (b) Antitrust laws

The Commission shall take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of this chapter, as well as the policies and purposes of this chapter, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 6(c) or 6c(b) of this title), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of a contract market or registered futures association established pursuant to section 21 of this title.

(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §15, as added Pub. L. 93–463, title I, §107, Oct. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 1395; amended Pub. L. 102–546, title V, §502(b), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3631; Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §119], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–403.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–554 inserted section catchline, added subsec. (a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (b), and inserted subsec. (b) heading.

1992—Pub. L. 102–546 substituted "regulation (including any exemption under section 6(c) or 6c(b) of this title)" for "regulation".

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

#### Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 418 of Pub. L. 93–463, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.
### §499l. Violations; report to Attorney General; proceedings; costs

The Secretary may report any violation of this chapter for which a civil penalty is provided to the Attorney General of the United States, who shall cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted in the proper courts of the United States without delay. The costs and expenses of such proceedings shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States.

(June 10, 1930, ch. 436, §12, 46 Stat. 536.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 562 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-25-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-27-1999
<CASH>                                           3,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,960
<ALLOWANCES>                                       385
<INVENTORY>                                      4,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,576
<PP&E>                                          10,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,133
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,659
<SALES>                                         16,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,574
<CGS>                                           10,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    46
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,753
<INCOME-TAX>                                       614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,206
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14



</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 8, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00627

- CR

Trevarrus Cortez Graves, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 2 7 TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GO ODWIN

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Order filed December 1, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00346-CR

____________

JOSE TRINIDAD TORRES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-CR-2794

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the 

voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and 

conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, 

even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. art. 38.22 6; Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 
The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate 

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1987). 

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this 

Court on or before January 2, 2023.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
### §7731. Inspections, seizures, and warrants

#### (a) Role of Attorney General

The activities authorized by this section shall be carried out consistent with guidelines approved by the Attorney General.

#### (b) Warrantless inspections

The Secretary may stop and inspect, without a warrant, any person or means of conveyance moving—

(1) into the United States to determine whether the person or means of conveyance is carrying any plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or article subject to this chapter;

(2) in interstate commerce, upon probable cause to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying any plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or article subject to this chapter; and

(3) in intrastate commerce from or within any State, portion of a State, or premises quarantined as part of a extraordinary emergency declared under section 7715 of this title upon probable cause to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying any plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or article regulated under that section or is moving subject to that section.

#### (c) Inspections with a warrant

#### (1) General authority

The Secretary may enter, with a warrant, any premises in the United States for the purpose of conducting investigations or making inspections and seizures under this chapter.

#### (2) Application and issuance of a warrant

Upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause to believe that there is on certain premises any plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, facility, or means of conveyance regulated under this chapter, a United States judge, a judge of a court of record in the United States, or a United States magistrate judge may, within the judge's or magistrate's 1 jurisdiction, issue a warrant for the entry upon the premises to conduct any investigation or make any inspection or seizure under this chapter. The warrant may be applied for and executed by the Secretary or any United States Marshal.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §421, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 448.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1), (2) and (c), was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, known as the Plant Protection Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.

1 So in original. Probably should be "magistrate judges's".
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief
Executive Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Carolinas.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS 
|James E. Rogers        
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 7, 2008
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Smith, Respondent, v United States Trucking Corporation, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed December 14, 1977. The facts in this case are not disputed. Claimant was employed as a rigging chauffeur and sustained injuries after he slipped and fell on the sidewalk during his lunch break on January 7, 1977. On that date, at approximately 11:30 a.m., claimant’s foreman suggested that they go for lunch and discuss the method they would use for installing a particularly heavy piece of equipment. While claimant, the foreman and a coworker walked down the street away from the job site and discussed the problem, claimant fell and injured himself. The board, in affirming an award in favor of claimant, found that the injury occurred within the course of employment and the employer appeals therefrom. The general rule concerning lunchtime injuries is that when an employee with a fixed time and place of work has left the premises for lunch, he is outside the course of his employment *(Matter of Jamison v New York State Temporary Comm, on Agric.,*308 NY 683; *Matter of Guzman v Victor Mach. Exch.,*61 AD2d 871). *940Exceptions to this general rule are made when it is found that the employer has continued to exert authority over the employee during the lunch break *(Matter of Caporale v State Dept, of Taxation & Fin.,*2 AD2d 91, affd 2 NY2d 946). While the claimant’s foreman may have only "suggested” that they go to lunch and discuss their work, courts have not failed to recognize that suggestions of this nature may have the effect of outright commands (see *Matter of Grosack v Hermann & Jacobs Corp.,*8 AD2d 572). Thus, where the foreman suggested that they go to lunch and discuss work and claimant was injured while that discussion was taking place, the board could logically conclude that the authority of the employer continued during claimant’s lunch break and that the employment itself was "not interrupted” at the time of the accident *(Matter of Bollard v Engel,*278 NY 463; *Matter of Caporale v State Dept, of Taxation & Fin.,*2 AD2d 91, *supra).*Accordingly, the board’s decision must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the appellant. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
# United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50212 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Samuel Zubia-Olivas,
Defendant—Appellant ,

consolidated with

_____________
No. 20-50228

_____________ United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Samuel Zubia-Olivas, also known as Juan Zubias-Sanchez, also known as Samuel Olivas Zubia, also known as Samuel Olivas-Zubia, also known as

Samuel Zubia Olivas, also known as Samuel Olivias Zubias,
Defendant—Appellant

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 23, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50212 Document: 00515575444 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2020No. 20-50212 c/w No. 20-50228

2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:16-CR-90-1 USDC No. 4:19-CR-747-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Samuel Zubia-Olivas appeals his Guidelines sentence of 96 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), which increases the maximum term of imprisonment to ten years, is unconstitutional because the statute treats a prior conviction as a sentencing factor, rather than as an element of a separate offense that must be listed in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that this issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in Almendarez-Torres

. In Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 239–47, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (concluding that Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013) did not disturb Almendarez-Torres ); United States v. Rojas-

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-50212 Document: 00515575444 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2020No. 20-50212 c/w No. 20-50228

3 Luna , 522 F.3d 502, 505 (5th Cir. 2008) (concluding Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not affect the treatment of prior convictions under Almendarez-Torres ). Thus, Zubia-Olivas’s argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED , the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT

. Case: 20-50212 Document: 00515575444 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/23/2020
#### Harry Weiss, an Infant, by Moses Weiss, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Defendant, and Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

Order, entered on January 3, 1962, setting aside verdict, reversed, on the law, and verdict reinstated, with $20 costs and disbursements in favor of defendant Board of Education against plaintiff. There was substantial evidence from which the jury could have resolved the issues both of negligence and contributory negligence as they did. Consequently it was error to disturb the verdict. A jury verdict in favor of defendant is not to be set aside unless it appears plainly that the- evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that an opposite conclusion could not have been reached on any fair interpretation (see collation of authorities in *Marion*v. *McCasland,*16 A D 2d 781, 782). Concur- — McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm.
### §451. "Agricultural products" defined

When used in this chapter the term "agricultural products" means agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and the products thereof, the products of poultry and bee raising, the edible products of forestry, and any and all products raised or produced on farms and processed or manufactured products thereof, transported or intended to be transported in interstate and/or foreign commerce.

(July 2, 1926, ch. 725, §1, 44 Stat. 802.)
**THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION**

**Washington, DC  20202**

MEMORANDUM

TO:Director, Program Management Services 

Business Operations 

Federal Student Aid

THROUGH:Chief Business Operations Officer

Business Operations

Federal Student Aid 

THROUGH:Chief Operating Officer   ◄▬▬

Federal Student Aid 

FROM:The Secretary

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority for Collection and Compromise of Claims against Individuals under the Federal Student Aid (FSA) Programs

I.DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3472, by 31 U.S.C. §3711, and by those provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that authorize the collection and compromise, waiver, and write-off of claims of the Department against individuals arising from their obligation to repay current or defaulted student loans held by the Department, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the following authorities:

A. The authority to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3716 and §3720A, and to any other official to whom certification may be required, that collection actions required by applicable statute, regulation, guidelines, or agreements have been taken with respect to these claims; and

Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

B. The authority to enforce, compromise, waive, and write off the collection of claims of the Department against individuals who have current student loans held by the Department or have defaulted on their obligation to repay loans or grant overpayments held by the Department, in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards and Department regulations, except with respect to a claim that appears to be fraudulent, false, or misrepresented by a party with an interest in the claim.

Unless otherwise specified in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II.RESERVATIONS

None.

III.REDELEGATION

A.The authority to certify compliance with collection requirements may not be redelegated.

B. The authority to enforce, compromise, waive, or write off claims against individuals for repayment of current or defaulted student loans and grant overpayments may be redelegated subject to financial limitations you may establish.  

IV.CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer and supersedes delegations EA/EN/54 and EA/ENG/55.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.  

______________/s/___________________

            Arne Duncan

OGC Clearance and Date:  /s/ David Berthiaume, 11/5/2009

Certified Date:  11/9/2009

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  EA/EN/68