alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/26/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      146,047
COMMITMENTS
  45,860   16,769   11,516   71,289   93,228  128,665  121,513   17,382   24,534

CHANGES FROM 06/19/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -11,993)
   3,724   -8,794   -3,154   -3,309   11,465   -2,739     -483   -9,254  -11,510

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    31.4     11.5      7.9     48.8     63.8     88.1     83.2     11.9     16.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      41       33       35       58       67      123      117
```

----

Updated June 29, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000911147
<NAME>     Century Casinos Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>     1000
<CURRENCY>     U.S. Dollars

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                                        3345
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  582
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                     67
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              4575
<PP&E>                                       36578
<DEPRECIATION>                                7848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               45295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         3779
<BONDS>                                      18136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       144
<OTHER-SE>                                   22662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 45295
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             19236
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 7874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              8153
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               3742
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1785
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2205
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2205
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .15


</TABLE>
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2191

To require that jewelry imported from another country be indelibly marked

with the country of origin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 1999

Mr. MCGOVERN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To require that jewelry imported from another country be

indelibly marked with the country of origin.

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

3 SECTION 1. MARKING OF IMPORTED JEWELRY.

4 (a) MARKING REQUIREMENT.—By no later than the

5 date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this

6 Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe and im7 plement regulations that require that all jewelry described

8 in subsection (b) that enters, or is withdrawn from ware9 house for consumption, into the customs territory of the

10 United States have the English name of the country of
2

•HR 2191 IH

1 origin indelibly marked in a conspicuous place on such

2 jewelry by cutting, die-sinking, engraving, stamping, or

3 some other permanent method. The exceptions from mark4 ing requirements provided in section 304 of the Tariff Act

5 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) shall not apply to jewelry de6 scribed in this section.

7 (b) JEWELRY.—The jewelry described in this sub8 section means any article described in heading 7117 of

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

Æ
In Re Otis Lee RODGERS, petitioner.

No. 17-9269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/21/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      154,981
COMMITMENTS
  54,405    9,986   12,759   64,958  107,436  132,122  130,181   22,859   24,800

CHANGES FROM 08/14/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,833)
     910      387   -1,491      127    2,715     -454    1,611   -1,379   -3,444

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    35.1      6.4      8.2     41.9     69.3     85.3     84.0     14.7     16.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      182)
      66       19       32       60       80      136      125
```

----

Updated August 24, 2012
Exhibit 2

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 59-3 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 993
App. 005

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 59-3 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 994
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2123

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a special

rule for long existing home health agencies with partial fiscal year 1994

cost reports in calculating the per beneficiary limits under the interim

payment system for such agencies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. BALDACCI (for himself and Mr. ALLEN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for a special rule for long existing home health agencies

with partial fiscal year 1994 cost reports in calculating

the per beneficiary limits under the interim payment

system for such agencies.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2123 IH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR LONG EXISTING HOME

2 HEALTH AGENCIES WITH PARTIAL FISCAL

3 YEAR 1994 COST REPORTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(v)(1)(L) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)) is amended

6 by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(x)(I) If requested by an applicable agency, the limi8 tation under clause (v) shall be determined for such agen9 cy by substituting in subclause (I) of that clause ‘the rea10 sonable costs (including nonroutine medical supplies) for

11 the agency’s cost report for the most recent partial cost

12 reporting period ending in fiscal year 1994’ for ‘the rea13 sonable costs (including nonroutine medical supplies) for

14 the agency’s 12-month cost reporting period ending during

15 fiscal year 1994’.

16 ‘‘(II) In this clause, the term ‘applicable agency’

17 means an agency that—

18 ‘‘(aa) was in existence prior to fiscal year 1980;

19 ‘‘(bb) had an active medicare provider number

20 prior to such date; and

21 ‘‘(cc) had less than a 12-month cost reporting

22 period ending in fiscal year 1994 because such agen23 cy changed the end date of its cost reporting period

24 during fiscal year 1994.
3

•HR 2123 IH

1 ‘‘(III) The limitation determined for an applicable

2 agency pursuant to this clause shall be excluded from any

3 calculation under this subparagraph of—

4 ‘‘(aa) a standardized regional average of costs;

5 or

6 ‘‘(bb) a national median of limits.’’.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact9 ment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Æ
Marie-Therese ASSA'AD-FALTAS, petitioner, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 17-8688.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

DAVID WAYNE MASON, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-198-JDK-JDL

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner David Wayne Mason, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this 

petition for writ of habeas corpus without paying the $5 filing fee or filing an 

application to proceed IFP. The case was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the 

disposition of the case. Docket No. 2. 

On June 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that 

the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to satisfy the fee requirement 

and to comply with the Court’s order to do so and recommending that a certificate of 

appealability be denied. Docket No. 5. Petitioner received the Report on July 11, 2023, 

and has not filed written objections. Docket No. 6. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00198-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 28
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) as the findings of this Court. 

Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1st August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00198-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 29
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

KAREN KAY PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COUNTY OF SMITH, PHILIP 

GREANEAD, SMITH COUN1Y 

DETECTIVE; JOHNATHAN PETERS, 

SMITH COUNTY DEPUTY; RILEY 

RUGG, SMITH COUNTY DEPUTY; AND 

**WARNED** LARRY SMITH., SMITH 

COUNTY SHERIFF;

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00293-JDK

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

This civil action was filed in the Southern District of Texas on May 30, 2023, and 

transferred to this court on June 13, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion 

to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 4.) Defendants notified 

the court that the motion was served on Plaintiff via certified mail on July 14, 2023. (Doc. No. 6.) 

Local Rule 7(e) provides that “[a] party opposing a motion has fourteen days (twenty-one days for 

summary judgment motions) from the date the motion was served in which to file a response and 

any supporting documents, after which the court will consider the submitted motion for decision.” 

L.R.-CV 7(e). Here, more than fourteen days have passed since Plaintiff was served with 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on July 14, 2023, and Plaintiff has not filed a response. Nor has 

Plaintiff filed any other documents in this case.

Case 6:23-cv-00293-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 27
2

The court has concerns regarding Plaintiff’s desire to prosecute this action as well as her 

participation in the filing of this action. Accordingly, the court sets this matter for a show cause 

hearing on August 17, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. before the Honorable John D. Love. The parties are to 

use the following link to connect to the video scheduling conference: 

https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1608601644?pwd=bmQ5cmsxMmZNanlsUnNqbTY2a1ovQT09. 

Plaintiff, Karen Kay Phillips, must be present for the hearing and be prepared to discuss with the 

court whether she intends to proceed with this action and whether she personally initiated the 

action. The court will solicit responses only from Ms. Phillips and/or her licensed attorney and 

counsel for Defendants. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to comply with this order may result in 

the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00293-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 08/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 28
Hagop DEMIRJIAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5606.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Carston Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8265.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/21/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       20,533
COMMITMENTS
   2,442    9,240    1,549   16,232    9,465   20,223   20,254      310      279

CHANGES FROM 08/14/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,495)
    -478    1,467      357    2,166      156    2,045    1,980     -550     -485

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    11.9     45.0      7.5     79.1     46.1     98.5     98.6      1.5      1.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       30)
       6        5        5       15       12       23       21`

---

Updated August 24, 2012
Exhibit 32.2








Certification of President and Co Chief Executive Officer








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.








Date:  May 10, 2010








/s/ Peter Hoetzinger


Peter Hoetzinger


President and Co Chief Executive Officer
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1982

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 25, 2000

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

AN ACT

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Rome, New York, as the ‘‘Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1982 RFS

1 SECTION. 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic

3 in Rome, New York, shall after the date of the enactment

4 of this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Donald J.

5 Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clin6 ic’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference to such outpatient clinic in a law, regu9 lation, map, document, record, or other paper of the

10 United States shall be considered to be a reference to the

11 Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Out12 patient Clinic.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON 

WIRELESS, and VERIZON CORPORATE 

SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00352-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC (“Headwater”) and Defendants 

Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Verizon Corporate Services Group, Inc.’s 

(collectively, “Verizon”) Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File E-Discovery Order. (Dkt. 

No. 46.) In the Agreed Motion, the Parties request an extension of time to file a Proposed EDiscovery Order from November 21, 2023 to December 1, 2023. Having considered the 

Agreed Motion, it is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for the Parties to file a Proposed E- Discovery Order 

is extended to December 1, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 47 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 671
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2256

To designate the San Antonio International Airport in San Antonio, Texas,

as an airport at which certain private aircraft arriving in the United

States from a foreign area may land for processing by the Customs

Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 17, 1999

Mr. GONZALEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To designate the San Antonio International Airport in San

Antonio, Texas, as an airport at which certain private

aircraft arriving in the United States from a foreign

area may land for processing by the Customs Service.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SAN ANTONIO INTER4 NATIONAL AIRPORT FOR CUSTOMS PROC5 ESSING OF CERTAIN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT AR6 RIVING IN THE UNITED STATES.

7 (a) DESIGNATION.—Not later than 60 days after the

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of
2

•HR 2256 IH

1 the Customs Service shall designate the San Antonio

2 International Airport in San Antonio, Texas, as an airport

3 at which private aircraft described in subsection (b) may

4 land for processing by the Customs Service in accordance

5 with section 122.24(b) of title 19, Code of Federal Regula6 tions.

7 (b) PRIVATE AIRCRAFT.—Private aircraft described

8 in this subsection are private aircraft that—

9 (1) arrive in the United States from a foreign

10 area and have a final destination in the United

11 States of San Antonio International Airport in San

12 Antonio, Texas; and

13 (2) would otherwise be required to land for

14 processing by the Customs Service at an airport list15 ed in section 122.24(b) of title 19, Code of Federal

16 Regulations, in accordance with such section.

17 (c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘private

18 aircraft’’ has the meaning given such term in section

19 122.23(a)(1) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations.

Æ
* 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

September 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60848 Summary Calendar

FRED HINES; GENEVA HINES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

STEVE PUCKETT, Commissioner of Mississippi Department of Corrections, Individually; JAMES ANDERSON, Superintendent of Parchman, Individually; JEFFERY THOMPSON, Individually; K. ROSS, Individually; R. RICE, Individually; STANLEY RUSSELL, Medical Director, Individually; JOHN DOES, 1-20 In Their Individual and Official Capacity; UNKNOWN HUNTER, Officer, Individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:99-CV-538-WS

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

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiffs Fred Hines and G eneva Hines appeal from the2

district court’s grant of summary judgment, on the basis of

qualified immunity, for James Anderson, Superintendent at Parchman,

Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). The plaintiffs’

civil rights suit stems from the suicide of their son, Clinton

Hines, a prisoner then housed at Parchman. After a d e novo review

of the record, we affirm.

The plaintiffs argue that Anderson was deliberately

indifferent to a dangerous condition created by Parchman’s

“Pharmacy Distribution Program,” and thus violated Clinton Hines’s

Eight Amendment rights. The evidence does not reflect Anderson’s

personal involvement. S ee Thompson v. Steele

, 709 F.2d 381, 382

(5th Cir. 1983). Nor does it reflect that Anderson was involved in

the implementation of the Pharmacy Distribution Program. S ee

Thompkins v. Belt

, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover,

the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a gen uine issue of

material fact that Ander son was subjectively aware e ither that

Clinton Hines posed a substantial suicide risk or that the prison’s

policies concerning prescription drugs posed a substantial risk of

increa sed inmate actual or attempted suicide. S ee Farmer v.

Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Accordingly, summary judgment

was proper even if we were to adopt the views expressed in Judge

Kravitch’s concurring opi nion in T ittle v. Jefferson County

Commission

, 10 F.3d 1535, 1541 (11th Cir. 1994). The alleged

“‘failure to alleviate a significant risk that [the official]3

should have perceived, but did not’ is insufficient to show

deliberate indifference.” D omino v. Tex as Dept of Criminal

Justice

, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Farmer

, 511

U.S. at 838).

AFFIRMED.