alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10252

KYEV POMPA TATUM, SR.; TONYA ROCHELLE TATUM; ARCHIE IKEY TATUM; HERSHEY ANN TATUM , Plaintiff s
- Appell ants , v. TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT; VICTOR W. HENDERSON; JACK STEVENS; MARTY LEONARD; JIM LANE; MARY KELLEHER , Defendant s
- Appell ee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CV

- 24

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and HAYNES , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : * The plaintiffs, Kyev Pompa Tatum, Sr., Tonya Rochelle Tatum, Archie Ikey Tatum, and Hershey Ann Tatum, appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction and dismissal of their action with prejudice. T hey sought to require the defendant

- appellant, the Tarrant Regional Water District, to hold an election in May of 2014 for two of its
director positions whose four

- year terms are set to expire then

. We agree with

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 23, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10252 Document: 00512605920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2014No. 14

- 10252
the district court that no election is authorized under Texas law until May of 2015, and the United States Constitution does not require an election this year

. We therefore affirm on that basis

. We take no position on the question of what will happen when the two directors ’ four

- year elected terms end in May of 2014

. T hat question is not yet ripe . When their terms end , Texas state law will control the question of how the director positions will be filled and any related issues. For the reasons set forth above , we AFFIRM

.

2 Case: 14-10252 Document: 00512605920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2014
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

June 27, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41098

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR CONAN BARAHONA-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-1303-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Conan Barahona-Mendez (Barahona) appeals his conviction

for attempted illegal reentry into the United States after

deportation and after his conviction for an aggravated felony in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). He argues that the

magistrate judge failed to determine at his rearraignment that his

guilty plea was voluntary and not the result of outside promises,

as required by former FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d) (now FED. R. CRIM. P.

11(b)(2)). He claims that he pleaded guilty based upon his
2

attorney’s erroneous advice regarding his sentence.

Because Barahona failed to object in the district court to

this alleged FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 error, he bears the burden of

demonstrating plain error, and we may consult the entire record

when determining the effect of this alleged error on his

substantial rights. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S.

Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002). 

The magistrate judge’s inquiries at his rearraignment and the

record as a whole establish that Barahona’s guilty plea was

voluntary. See United States v. Law, 633 F.2d 1156, 1158 and n.1

(5th Cir. 1981). For example, at the rearraignment, Barahona’s

indictment was read to him, and he acknowledged that he understood

the charge. Barahona also confirmed the correctness of the factual

basis for his guilty plea. In addition, Barahona told the

magistrate judge that he had attended college in the United States

and had worked as a business administrator and with computers.

Furthermore, Barahona did not object to the magistrate judge’s

proposed finding that he had entered his guilty plea freely and

voluntarily.

Moreover, Barahona was informed about the maximum penalty for

the crime to which he pleaded guilty; therefore, Barahona was aware

of the consequences of his guilty plea and any erroneous advice of

his counsel to the contrary is immaterial. See United States v.

Jones, 905 F.2d 867, 868 (5th Cir. 1990).

Consequently, Barahona has not shown that the magistrate
3

judge’s failure to make the specific inquiry set forth in FED.

R. CRIM. P. 11(d) was plain error. See Vonn, 122 S. Ct. at 1046.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.361 Flint River.

The draws of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridges, miles 28.0 and 28.7, both at Bainbridge, shall open on signal if at least 15 days notice is given.
Argued and submitted November 30,

remanded for resentencing in part; otherwise affirmed December 23, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ALPHONSO CAMPBELL, *Appellant.*

(91C-20315; CA A73684)

842 P2d 815

Steven V. Humber, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Timothy L. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Remanded for resentencing on conviction for robbery in the first degree; otherwise affirmed. *State v. Haydon,*116 Or App 347, 842 P2d 410 (1992).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (159)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,887
<PP&E>                                           6,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,176)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,296
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           413
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,053)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,816
<SALES>                                          8,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,020
<CGS>                                            3,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (47)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (167)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (374)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (541)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
Program Name

Program Information Cover Sheet

Instructions to Program Facilitator(s): Please provide the requested details

about this program. Please print clearly. Use this as a cover sheet for the

completed data collection forms to return to the Survey Coordinator.

1. Site Name: 

Address: 

City: State: Zip: 

2. Program Facilitator Names (please provide full first and last names and provide the 

daytime phone number and/or email of the best person to contact about any questions 

on the forms)

First Name

First Name

Last Name

Last Name

Ph: (___) _____ - ____________

Email:

Would you like to receive program information from the

National CDSME Resource Center? Yes No

Ph: (___) _____ - ____________

Email:

Would you like to receive program information from 

National CDSME Resource Center? Yes No
3. Program Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy): / / 

 End Date (mm/dd/yyyy): / / __

4. Did you offer a “Session 0” with this program? (Session 0 is an optional pre-program

session. Not all programs offer a Session 0.)

o Yes

o No

o Don’t know

5. What type of program is this? Mark only one. [Note to grantee: adapt this section to fit 

 local programming]

o Active Living Every Day

o Arthritis Foundation Aquatic Program

o Arthritis Foundation Exercise Program

o BRI Care Consultation

o Cancer: Thriving and Surviving

o Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP)

o Chronic Pain Self-Management Program (CPSMP)

o Diabetes Self-Management Program (DSMP)

o Eat Smart, Move More, Weigh Less

o EnhanceFitness

o EnhanceWellness

o Fit and Strong!

o Geri-Fit

o Health Coaches for Hypertension Control

o Healthy IDEAS

o Healthy Moves for Aging Well

o HomeMeds

o Living Well in the Community

o On the Move

o PEARLS

o Positive Self-Management Program for HIV

o Programa de Manejo Personal de la Diabetes (Spanish DSMP)

o Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)

o Tomando Control de su Salud (Spanish CDSMP)

o Walk With Ease

o Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP)

o Workplace Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (wCDSMP)

6. Please check which language you used when offering this program:
o English

o Spanish

o Other: ________________________________________

7. What funding source(s) were used to support this program? Check all that apply.

o ACL CDSME Grant

o Older Americans Act (Title III-D, Title III-E, etc.)

o Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

o Other Federal Funding

o Medicaid/Medicaid Waiver

o Medicare/Medicare Advantage

o Other Health Care Payer

o Foundation Funding

o Corporate Sponsor

o Don’t Know

o Other: ________________________________________
Envejecer

SIN LÍMITES

acl.gov/oam
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.849 Muskingum River (Zanesville Canal).

The draw of the Conrail bridge, mile 77.1 at Zanesville, shall open on signal Tuesday through Friday if the Conrail office is notified by 12:01 p.m. on the day preceding the day the opening is required. For openings Saturday through Monday, the Conrail office shall be notified by 12:01 p.m. on Friday specifying which day and time the opening is required. In case of emergency, the draw shall open as soon as possible.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM IE L. C OM M AC K, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15521 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00985-GM S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 15, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, C LIFTON, a

nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Jam ie C om

m a c k a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for supplem e nta l
se c urity inc om e and disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits under the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s 

# FIL ED APR 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de c ision denovo. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th C ir. 2012). W e

a ffirm
. The a dm inistra

tive la w judge did not e rr in finding tha t C o m m a c k ’ s sym ptom te stim ony

wa s not fully

c re dible . The ALJ provide d “ spe c i fic , c le ar, and
c onvinc i ng re a sons” for the c re dibility a sse ssm e nt tha

t we re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in there c ord. Se eid. at 1113 (ALJ c an re je c t c la im ant te stim ony a bout se v e rity

of sy m ptom s by offe ring spe c ific , c le a

r, and c onvinc ing
re a s ons). The se re a sons inc lude d C om m a c k’ s inc onsiste nt sta

te m e nts, inc o nsiste nc i e s be twe e n he r state m e nts a nd the m e dic a l e vide nc e , C o m m a c k’ s fa ilure to e nga ge in se lf-he l p, a nd a finding of m a linge ring. The ALJ did not err by giving little we ight to the

opinions of two of C om m a c k’ s tre at i ng phy s ic ia

n s . B o th opinions we

re c o ntra dic te d by

the opinions of non-tre ating phy s ic ia

ns, a nd the ALJ provide d “ spe c ific an d le gitim ate re a sons supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in there c ord” for re je c ting the m . Re ddic k

v . C hate r , 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th C ir. 1998). The ALJ’ s a sse ssm e nt of C om m a c k’ s re s idua l work c a

p a c ity wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , inc l uding a dm issions ma de in C o m m a c k ’ s a pplic ation for be ne fits, he r te stim o ny

at the he aring, a

nd the obje c tive m e d ic a l re c ord. AFFIRM E D.

2
§ 127.013 Suspension of transfer operations. ( a ) The COTP may issue an order to the operator to suspend LHG or LNG transfer operations if the COTP finds any condition requiring immediate action to— ( 1 ) Prevent damage to, or the destruction of, any bridge or other structure on or in the navigable waters of the United States, or any land structure or shore area immediately adjacent to such waters; and
( 2 ) Protect the navigable waters and the resources therein from harm resulting from vessel or structure damage, destruction, or loss.
( b ) Each order to suspend transfer operations issued under paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) Is effective immediately;
( 2 ) Contains a statement of each condition requiring immediate action; and
( 3 ) Is withdrawn by the COTP whenever each condition is corrected or no longer exists.
[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39795, Aug. 3, 1995]
§ 97.11 State plans. ( a ) *Scope.* The statutes for some programs require States to submit plans before receiving grants. Under regulations implementing Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” States are allowed to simplify, consolidate and substitute plans. This section contains additional provisions for plans that are subject to regulations implementing the Executive Order.
( b ) *Requirements.* A State need meet only Federal administrative or programmatic requirements for a plan that are in statutes or codified regulations.
( c ) *Assurances.* In each plan the State will include an assurance that the State shall comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. For this assurance and other assurances required in the plan, the State may: ( 1 ) Cite by number the statutory or regulatory provisions requiring the assurances and affirm that it gives the assurances required by those provisions,
( 2 ) Repeat the assurance language in the statutes or regulations, or
( 3 ) Develop its own language to the extent permitted by law.
( d ) *Amendments.* A State will amend a plan whenever necessary to reflect: ( 1 ) New or revised Federal statutes or regulations or
( 2 ) a material change in any State law, organization, policy, or State agency operation. The State will obtain approval for the amendment and its effective date but need submit for approval only the amended portions of the plan.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of China Marine Food Group Limited, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Marine Food Group Limited and will be retained by China Marine Food Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date: March 2, 2011
/s/ Marco Hon Wai KuMarco Hon Wai Ku, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10(a)

STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

ENERGEN CORPORATION 1997 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

[Incentive Stock Option / Nonqualified Stock Option] 

Dated as of ____________,_____

A stock option is hereby granted to the below named Participant.  This option is granted under the Energen Corporation 1997 Stock Incentive Plan ("the Plan"), dated November 25, 1997, as amended, and is subject in all respects to the terms and provisions of the Plan which is incorporated herein by reference.  Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this option is subject to the exercise and transferability restrictions set forth in the Plan.  Words defined in the Plan and used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.  The attributes of this option are as follows:

Incentive Stock Option:
  This option is a[n] [ Incentive Stock Option / Nonqualified Stock Option ].
**2)	Participant:	Name
**3)	Shares subject to option:	Shares			**4)	Date of Grant:	**___________
**5)	Exercise Price per share:	$_____			              **6)	Expiration Date:	**___________
**7)	Vesting:	  The option shall become exercisable on [ 100% on a specified date / in increments on specified dates ].   Any exercisable portion of the option may be exercised in full or, from time to time, in increments of at least 100 shares.
**8)	SARs:	This option [ does / does not ] include stock appreciation rights (see Plan Section 6.2(i)), [but such stock 

appreciation rights are payable only in shares of stock, they are not payable in cash].
****9)	DEs:	This option [does / does not ] include dividend equivalents (see Plan Section 6.3(j) of the Plan) [, but such dividend equivalents will be payable only if and to the extent that the option is exercised].
**10)	Additional terms and conditions:	[ None /  specified additional terms and conditions ].

 

ENERGEN CORPORATION				The Participant hereby accepts this option and

							agrees to accept as binding, conclusive, and

							and final all decisions and interpretations of 

							the Committee and/or the Board, upon any

							questions arising under the Plan.

By:	                                                                                
	

Its:	________________________________________					

							                                                                                      
							Participant - Name**************
Exhibit 23.1          
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements No. 333-105237 on Form SB-2 and No. 333-114651 on Form S-8 ofTMSF Holdings,  Inc. of our report, dated April 7, 2006,  appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TMSF Holdings,  Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2005.
/S/ SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM& GOLDSTEIN LLP SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM& GOLDSTEIN LLP Los Angeles, CaliforniaApril 13, 2006
§ 126.12 How do I request the use of an alternative method of complying with a requirement in this part? ( a ) An owner or operator of a waterfront facility may request that the COTP allow the use of an alternative method of complying with a requirement in this part.
( b ) The request must establish, to the COTP's satisfaction— ( 1 ) That compliance with the requirement is economically or physically impractical; and
( 2 ) That the alternative requested provides an equivalent or greater level of safety.
( c ) The COTP examines the request and provides an answer, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the request.
[USCG-1998-4302, 68 FR 55441, Sept. 26, 2003]
### 6/24/2011 Page 1 of 1

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Summary Page

Based on releases in Test Data Review Engin eering Report Draft Version 4, dated 06/08/2011.

Chemical ID: P-10-0231 Reviewer: Flessner

Endpoints-Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment Cycles 1 Releases Assessed in NCEM2? Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB Testing Required No Hazard Concern No Releases Release Below Acute Threshold 5 Release Below Chronic Threshold 5 Other

Ingestion Surface water Ground water (landfill) Consumer Use: DtD 2 Inhalation Air: incineration (stack) Air: fugitive Consumer Use: CEM 3 Dermal Consumer Use: CEM Eco Surface water: ADR conc and/or PDM 4
Consumer Use: DtD

1 Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model.
2 Down-the-Drain
3 Consumer Exposure Model
4 Probabilistic Dilution Model
5 The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure assessment in the Expo sure Assessment Branch **=** s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report.

.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4368]]

Public Law 115-284
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mission, Texas, as the ``Mission Veterans Post 
        Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 6, 2018 -  [H.R. 1209]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MISSION VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mission, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mission Veterans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mission 
Veterans Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 6, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1209:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Mar. 5, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
•QEPI O FTRAHSPORWi ^ :[ S \i

- ^ 

### n OST-2010-004 6 USDO T Secretar y Dea r Sir : Keefrnrt h ou r

titit e zoiie . I

f w e chang e i t

wil l har mth e count y aaidit' s residents . Kee p u s i n Moimtai n Time . Rura l Residen t Merce r Count y