alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 690

 683

 697

 640

 564

 690

 656

 658

 620

 633

 663

 663

 612

 582

 600

 637

 653

 673

 659

 656

 678

 677

 658

 655

 644

 645

 653

 656

 661

 669

 692

 589

 591

 564

 554

 532

 556

 552

 591

 604

 584

 587

 590

 564

 559

 559

 581

 599

 613

 607

 607

 602

 603

 600

 605

 593

 619

 611

 610

 601

 620

 648

 655

 640

 619

 584

 542

 638

 575

 629

 613

 606

 633

 624

 589

 568

 577

 598

 617

 643

 634

 630

 632

 639

 632

 630

 611

 630

 638

 633

 628

 642

 661

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 3, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 421

 412

 399

 377

 351

 410

 371

 405

 395

 391

 407

 402

 380

 367

 373

 386

 397

 413

 408

 405

 407

 411

 407

 405

 394

 405

 410

 407

 404

 413

 424

TOTAL 19,190

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
#### § 273.2 Definition.

As used in this part, the term *Carrier* means an individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire to the United States.
#### Jesse Mello, an Infant, by Rose Mello, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant. Joseph Evans, an Infant, by Anna Evans, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant. John Leonti, an Infant, by Josephine Leonti, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 25886.)

(Claim No. 25887.)

(Claim No. 25888.)

All concur.
CVC Water Delivery Records

Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Red indicates Scheduled Data Green indicates Confirmed Delivery Data Contract Water Year Allocated Supply = 100%Blue indicates Actual Data Peach Cells indicate Article 55 Actions Deliveries to or on Behalf of CVC Contractors (Includes Allocated Supply or Acquired W

Apr-23

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

Article 55 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

(No Losses 

Applies)

3% Loss 

Between 

Banks and 

O'Neill 

Based on 

Actual Banks 

Pumping

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Tracy 

AF

CVC Water 

Pumped @ 

O'Neill 

AF

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Dos 

Amigos for 

Delivery 

AF

O'Neill 

USBR to 

DWR 

Exchanges

O'Neill 

DWR to 

USBR 

Exchanges

Arvin-Edison WSD 

SJRRP Supply via 

CoF CVC 

Contract 

SWPAO#21-307

4/1/20234/2/20234/3/20234/4/20234/5/20234/6/20234/7/20234/8/20234/9/2023

4/10/20234/11/20234/12/20234/13/20234/14/20234/15/20234/16/20234/17/20234/18/20234/19/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/20/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/21/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/22/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/23/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/24/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/25/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/26/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/27/2023 203 AF 203 AF 203 AF4/28/2023 174 AF 174 AF 174 AF4/29/2023 174 AF 174 AF 174 AF4/30/2023

Monthly Total 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 2,175 AF 2,175 AF 0 AF 2,175 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 

Running total delivered for each individual action= 3,407 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

Note:

Contract Water Year 2023 (Mar 1, 2023 to Feb 28, 2024) Breakdown of CVC Supply, Article 55 and Transfer In Deliveries

Mar 1, 2023 to 

Apr 30, 2023 CVC Banks Art 55 at Banks Losses Banks to O'Neill CVC at Tracy CVC at O'Neill CVC at Dos Amigos O'Neill USBR to DWR Exchange O'Neill DWR to USBR Exchange Kern-Tulare County of Fresno Hills Valley Tri Valley County of Tulare Pixley Lower Tule 

Year to Date Contract 

Wtr Yr Total 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 3,407 AF 3,407 AF 0 AF 0 AF 3,407 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 

V:\~WATER\~SMITH\Cross Valley Contractor Deliveries Info\03-2023 to 02-2024\Master 03_2023 to 02_2024 CVC Deliveries New Format
# Official Journal L 131/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.131.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 131 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5329 May 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.131.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 131

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5329 May 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 of 25 May 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing | 22 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 469/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 27 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 470/2010 of 28 May 2010 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year | 29 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 of 25 May 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

22

Commission Regulation (EU) No 469/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

27

Commission Regulation (EU) No 470/2010 of 28 May 2010 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 877/2009 for the 2009/10 marketing year

29

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
M o n t a n a

W y o m i n g

P

o

w

der

River

C

o

u

nty

Big

H

o

r

n

C

o

u

nty

P

o

w

der

River

C

o

u

nty

R

oseb

u

d

C

o

u

nty

Rosebud County

Big Horn County

Sheridan County

Otter

Creek

R

o

s

e

b

u

d

Cre

e

k

Powder

River

Cook Creek

Hanging

Woman

Creek

Bear

Creek

Trail Creek

Squirrel Creek

Indian Creek

Tenmile Creek

Badger Creek

Pumpkin

Creek

Bitter Creek

T o

n g

u

e

R i v

e

r

T o

n g

u

e

R i v

e

r

P o

w

d e

r

R i v

e

r

Tongue

River

Reservoir

Crow

Reservation

Northern Cheyenne

Reservation

Custer

National

Forest

Birney

Decker

Quietus

Bald Eagle Winter Roost Observation Areas

within the WMPP Focus Area

Bald Eagle Winter Roost

Town

Intermittent Stream

Stream

River

Tongue River Reservoir

WMPP Focus Area

Bureau of Indian Affairs Lands

US Forest Service Lands

County Boundary

State Boundary

0 5 10 15 20

Miles

0 10 20

Kilometers

Scale: 1:288,000

Projection: UTM Zone 13, NAD 83

Base Map: ESRI Corp. Shaded Relief

Rosebud, Big Horn and

Powder River Counties, Montana

1043 Coffeen Avenue, Suite D

Sheridan, WY 82801

(307) 673-4303
(No. 76-CC-3165

#### John L. Cain, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed November 29, 1978.*

This matter comes before the Court on a motion of Respondent to dismiss this cause.

• In a recent case, *Jewel Food Stores, Division of Jewel Companies, Inc. v. State of Illinois,*this Court made a ruling in cases of this nature.

Based upon said decision, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied and an award is entered in the amount of $8.00 in favor of Claimant.
### §21. Stolen or counterfeit nature of property for certain crimes defined

(a) Wherever in this title it is an element of an offense that—

(1) any property was embezzled, robbed, stolen, converted, taken, altered, counterfeited, falsely made, forged, or obliterated; and

(2) the defendant knew that the property was of such character;

such element may be established by proof that the defendant, after or as a result of an official representation as to the nature of the property, believed the property to be embezzled, robbed, stolen, converted, taken, altered, counterfeited, falsely made, forged, or obliterated.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "official representation" means any representation made by a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in section 115) or by another person at the direction or with the approval of such an officer.

(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, §320910(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2127.)
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Danny Ray Guttery

, * From the 29 th District

Court of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 14646

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00160

- CR * July 10, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial c ourt is in all things affirmed.
(No. 77-CC-2187

#### Western Waterproofing Company, Claimant *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 9, 1979.*

Richard A. Hollis, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Polos, C.J.

This matter is before the Court on the stipulation of the parties. That stipulation establishes that Claimant, Western Waterproofing Company, was awarded a contract for certain work on the Armory Building at Dixon, Illinois. After the contract was awarded and the work commenced, Claimant determined that in order to adequately complete the job, it was necessary to replace windows around the upper perimeter of the Armory. This involved removing the old glazing and replacing the glass where missing or broken with new glazing prior to painting.

The Capitol Development Board was the contracting agency on behalf of the using agency, the Military and Naval Department. The project manager overseeing the work on behalf of the Capitol Development Board was one Mr. J. Delaney, who is no longer employed by the State. It appears that Mr. Delaney, upon receiving a proposal from Claimant, approved *744the proposal and told Claimant to proceed with the additional work. The work was completed, but a “Request For Proposal And Change Order” was never processed. The “request” was recommended by the contractor, by the using agency, and by the Capitol Development Board. However the change order was never approved and issued by the Capitol Development Board. The Capitol Development Board had provided for a ten percent contingency in their appropriations and allocations for this contract, and there were adequate funds remaining in the project at the time the verbal authorization was given by Mr. Delaney and the work performed.

Claimant is requesting the sum of $1,344.00 for the additional work performed, and there is no question as to the reasonableness of that charge, or the quality of the work performed.

The State of Illinois has agreed to submission of this matter on the foregoing stipulation, and agrees that an award should be made at the discretion of the Court.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $1,344.00.
**Exhibit31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

I, Vincent Y. Yan, certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Lotus Pacific, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sBoard of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   | Date: February 14, 2005                       |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |                                          |
|   | */s/* *YAN, Vincent Yong*                |   |
|   | YAN, Vincent Yong                             |
|   | President, Chief Executive  Officer, Director |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned officer of Moldflow Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
that to his knowledge the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2006 to which this certification is being
furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item
601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item
601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that
the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

Date: February 6, 2007

                                  /s/ A. ROLAND THOMAS
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                  Name:    A. Roland Thomas
                                  Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
### Working Draft EPA's NPDES Pesticides General Permit Andrews, Jeff

to: Jack Faulk
01/29/2010 10:20 AM
Cc: "Spanos, Stergios", "Smagula, Amy"
Show Details

Jack, I know this is late but since Amy Smagula and I read the draft I figured I’d send these comments to you anyway. In general the draft seems like it would work to address the court’ s mandate and still be workable at the state level since it would mainly target the largest pesticide users.

Here are our comments:



### 1. Page 2, part 1.1.2.2. Please reconsider making ORW ine ligible. I can envision sit uations where it may be necessary to control pests in these waters. Since any discharge would be temporar y it may be acceptable. 

### 2. Page 2, part 1.2.2. Although it is clear after further r eading, when I read this sect ion the first time it seemed
to indicate that the table of us age thresholds only applied to the last bullet on page 4 which reads “Any other entity ...” 

### 3. Page 15, part 3.0, second paragraph. If an application of aquatic plant herbicides results in a nutrient release that causes an algae bloom would this be co nsidered a violation that would require corrective
actions? 

### 4. Page 16. part 4.2, last paragraph. What if your target is, say, variable milfoil? If you treat with 2,4-D and you see some impacts to non target species, would th is be a problem, even if th e label of the product says that those species may be impacted, when your stated target is variable milfoil? Exactly what would this mean? 

### 5. Page 18, part 5.1.2. Consider adding a new item g. requiring the applicator to list any impairments. 

### 6. Page 21, part 6.2. Consider requiring an explanation of why the changes to the control measures couldn’t be made and capping the time to do this to say 60 days. 

### 7. Page 22, part 6.3.2. Since the definit ion of “adverse incidents” include effects on people, consider adding the number of people, ages ... to the list of info that must be included in the report. 

### 8. Page 24, part 7.0, last paragraph. Consider requiring that applicants send in the annual report or a single page of it when they don’t apply pe sticides for the year. How else will EP A know if they are failing to submit the reports when they are required? Also, in the last sentence consider revising the phrase “Once a permittee meets the obligation to submit ...” to sa y “Once a permittee meets the threshold requiring the
submittal of ...” 

### 9. Page 24, part 8.2. It could be difficult to include all of the listed information in a single pest management log. Does all the info rea lly need to be in the log?

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Please call if you have any questions.

Thanks, Jeff

Jeffrey G. Andrews, P.E. Sanitary Engineer Wastewater Engineering Bureau NH Department of Environmental Services Tel: (603) 271-2984 Fax: (603) 271-4128 E-mail: Jeff.Andrews@des.nh.gov 

### Page 1 of 1

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0875.htm
§ 361.185 When are sanctions applied for a State's failure to submit an annual performance report? ( a ) Sanctions will be applied when a State fails to submit the State annual performance report required under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA. A State fails to report if the State either: ( 1 ) Does not submit a State annual performance report by the date for timely submission set in performance reporting guidance; or
( 2 ) Submits a State annual performance report by the date for timely submission, but the report is incomplete.
( b ) Sanctions will not be applied if the reporting failure is due to exceptional circumstances outside of the State's control. Exceptional circumstances may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Natural disasters;
( 2 ) Unexpected personnel transitions; and
( 3 ) Unexpected technology related issues.
( c ) In the event that a State may not be able to submit a complete and accurate performance report by the deadline for timely reporting: ( 1 ) The State must notify the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of Education as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days prior to the established deadline for submission, of a potential impact on the State's ability to submit its State annual performance report in order to not be considered failing to report.
( 2 ) In circumstances where unexpected events occur less than 30 days before the established deadline for submission of the State annual performance reports, the Secretaries of Labor and Education will review requests for extending the reporting deadline in accordance with the Departments of Labor and Education's procedures that will be established in guidance.
!"#$$

	%%&'%(%((' 

  ($)*$+,-$*


.# 

 

	/0
%0	

0
	%


	





	
 !
"#%


&
&'(!
)

*
+




,
+&





)
!
-*

))	./*
0
*
**


0



"
1
*
	
23
&)

*
*

&
*






&*
"





-

"&

(	!	!
!
"4
*
*
&
&'(!
)




)
!

+


+&


&



5



*-*


(	!	!

"
**


"
5
*"&


(*





6
*"&
1
*
	


23
&)

*
*"&

	


!
7888888888888

888888888888888888888888888888888888

21=

&

>
*
23
&?*+


Oct 3 2017

/s/ Brian F. Kenney

Entered on Docket: October 4, 2017

Case 17-12061-BFK Doc 38 Filed 10/04/17 Entered 10/04/17 10:44:36 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
=1(	7

  @@?

&?  

?

&?A2B<;CD:


&'(!
)

E::.F+
9:G


5*A+99E;G




7<:EHIGCH9;::

1

7<:EHIGCH9;:I



!
"

..!/	!7

@@?
313
88888888

(


>



;;I>


9;:


5*A+99E;G

9

Case 17-12061-BFK Doc 38 Filed 10/04/17 Entered 10/04/17 10:44:36 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### William Winchester, appellee, v. Mary M. Roys et al., Impleaded With Walter G. Clark, Administrator, appellant.

Filed March 8, 1899.

No. 8793.

Affirmance of Judgment Upon Conflicting Evidence.

Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard belotv before Poaaiell, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Congdon*cG *Parish,*for appellant.

*Francis A. Brogan, contra.*

Per Curiam.

In this case there is involved nothing but questions of fact determined by the clistrict court upon conflicting-evidence, and accordingly its judgment is

Affirmed.