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

DAY HIGH

 637

 632

 619

 644

 655

 654

 642

 618

 610

 602

 603

 602

 606

 613

 613

 605

 589

 571

 560

 547

 543

 545

 542

 555

 561

 553

 564

 574

 583

 579

 608

 610

 609

 610

 646

 624

 613

 609

 602

 595

 596

 593

 597

 605

 601

 584

 569

 540

 534

 525

 523

 522

 520

 518

 524

 531

 537

 534

 541

 551

 619

 617

 612

 630

 651

 635

 625

 614

 605

 599

 601

 595

 601

 609

 609

 595

 578

 556

 547

 539

 534

 532

 530

 533

 541

 541

 548

 554

 558

 565

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 27, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 399

 397

 394

 405

 418

 408

 402

 395

 390

 386

 387

 384

 387

 392

 392

 384

 373

 360

 354

 349

 346

 345

 344

 345

 350

 350

 355

 358

 361

 365

TOTAL 17,473

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
#### § 600.8 Treatment of a branch campus.

A branch campus of an eligible proprietary institution of higher education or a postsecondary vocational institution must be in existence for at least two years as a branch campus after the branch is certified as a branch campus before seeking to be designated as a main campus or a free-standing institution.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099c)

[64 FR 58616, Oct. 29, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 67070, Nov. 1, 2002]
§ 373.6 What types of projects may be funded? The Secretary may fund the following types of projects under this program: ( a ) Special projects of service delivery.
( b ) Model demonstration.
( c ) Technical assistance.
( d ) Systems change.
( e ) Special studies, research, or evaluations.
( f ) Dissemination and utilization.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 303(b)(4) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 773(b)(4))
#### Lena Ciaccio et al., Appellants, v. Clyde A. Skinner, Respondent.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

s1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

141354

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141354 COA: 295472 Wayne CC: 03-010325-FH THOMAS J. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES

FOR HIGH-INTENSITY DISCHARGE (HID) LAMPS 

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585 

Thursday, January 19, 2012 

Room 8E-089 Review Center

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to discuss the proposed 

test procedures for high-intensity discharge lamps. DOE will seek comment on the 

proposed HID lamp test procedures. 

Agenda

 9:00-9:30 am Welcome; Introductions; Agenda Review; and Opening 

Statements

Tina Kaarsberg and Doug Brookman

 9:30-9:45 am Statute, and Context 

Michael Myer

 9:45-11:15 am Proposed HID Test Procedures: Definitions; Test 

Methods

Heidi Steward & Lindsay Steele

 11:15-11:30 am Break

 11:30-12:00 pm Proposed HID Test Procedures: Laboratory 

Accreditation Program; Test Measurements and 

Calculations Heidi Steward & Lindsay Steele

 12:00-12:30 pm Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Tina Kaarsberg and Michael Myer

At the end of each section, time will be set aside for web participants to ask 

questions and/or make statements. 

Questions e-mailed during webinar will be included in the transcript.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-1625

___________ Dale Brent Adams, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Tyson Foods, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 4, 2011 Filed: October 7, 2011

___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dale Adams appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action ag ainst his former employer, Tyson Foods. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude th at the district court properly granted Tyson Foods summary judgment, because Adam s failed to present a trialworthy issue as to whether Tyson’s legitimate, non-disc riminatory reason for his termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. SeeTusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. , 639 F.3d 507, 514-18 (8th Cir. 2011) (s tandard of review; burden-shifting

1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Unite d States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.analysis); Manning v. American Republic Ins. Co. , 604 F.3d 1030, 1044 (8th Cir.) (absenteeism constitutes legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for termination) , cert. denied , 131 S. Ct. 648 (2010) ; Bloom v. Metro Heart Grp. of St. Louis, Inc. , 440 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2006) (conclusory alle gations and speculation are insufficient to defeat summary judgment). Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Adams’s pending motions for an injunction and sanctions.

______________________________

- 2-
### REVISED April 1, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10216 Summary Calendar

TERRY JAMES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. JUDGE DAVID C. GODBEY; MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEFF KAPLAN,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Distr ict of Texas USDC No. 3:1 2

- CV

- 4 809

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

. P ER CURIAM: * Terry James moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of permission to sue Judge David Godbey and Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan . Mr. James wished to file a su it alleging

* 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 June 27, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2015No. 14

- 10216 that Judge Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan violated his constitutional rights by sanctioning him. The district court determined that his suit was frivolous, denied permission to sue, and further denied Mr. James’s application to proceed IFP on appeal. By moving for IFP status, Mr. Jame s is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We agree with the district court that Mr.
J ame s’s app eal is not in good faith. “It is well established that judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings,” Mays v. Sudderth , 97 F.3d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1996), and Mr. J ame s makes no argument that somehow judicial immunity should not apply here, see, e.g. , Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 356

- 57 (1978) (noting exception to judicial immunity for acting in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction”). As such, because Judge Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan clearly enjoy absolut e immunity, Mr.
J ames ’s suit is frivolous.
Because Mr. James has not shown his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits, we DENY permission for leave to proceed IFP, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See, e.g. , Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
### §3594. Imposition of a sentence of death

Upon a recommendation under section 3593(e) that the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of release, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. Otherwise, the court shall impose any lesser sentence that is authorized by law. Notwithstanding any other law, if the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense is life imprisonment, the court may impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release.

(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60002(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1966.)
§ 552.25 Use of less-than-lethal weapons, including chemical agents. ( a ) The Warden may authorize the use of less-than-lethal weapons, including those containing chemical agents, only when the situation is such that the inmate: ( 1 ) Is armed and/or barricaded; or
( 2 ) Cannot be approached without danger to self or others; and
( 3 ) It is determined that a delay in bringing the situation under control would constitute a serious hazard to the inmate or others, or would result in a major disturbance or serious property damage.
( b ) The Warden may delegate the authority under this regulation to one or more supervisors on duty and physically present, but not below the position of Lieutenant.
[76 FR 6056, Feb. 3, 2011]
Exhibit 24.1
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears on
this  Form  10-KSB  hereby  constitutes  and  appoints Bruce I. Lewis and Jay S.
Stulberg,  or either of them, with full power to act without the other, his true
and  lawful  attorney-in-fact  and  agent,  with  full power of substitution and
resubstitution,  for  him  and  in  his  name,  place  and stead, in any and all
capacities  (unless revoked in writing) to sign any or all amendments (including
post-effective  amendments  thereto)  to this Form 10-KSB to which this power of
attorney is attached, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents  in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting  to said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to  be  done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
might  or  could  do  in  person,  hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact  and  agents,  or  any  of them, or their or his substitute or
substitutes,  may  lawfully  do  or  cause  to  be  done  by  virtue  hereof.

     Pursuant  to  the requirements of Securities Act of 1933, this registration
statement  has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the
dates  indicated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SIGNATURE                                   TITLE                  DATE
-------------------------------  ----------------------------  -------------
<S>                              <C>                           <C>


/s/ Bruce I. Lewis               Chief Executive Officer       July 14, 2000
-------------------------------  (Principal Executive
Bruce I. Lewis                   Officer), Director


/s/ Jay S. Stulberg              President, Chief Operating    July 14, 2000
-------------------------------  Officer, Chief Financial
Jay S. Stulberg                  Officer (Principal Financial
                                 Officer and Principal
                                 Accounting Officer),
                                 Secretary, Director


/s/  David G. R. Butler
-------------------------------  Director                      July 14, 2000
David G. R. Butler


-------------------------------  Director                      July 14, 2000
Carl J. Corcoran


/s/ H. Joseph Greenberg          Director                      July 14, 2000
-------------------------------
H. Joseph Greenberg
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the report of College Partnership, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal period ended October 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Schoonbrood, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of our
knowledge:

     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 the Company.



Dated:  January 12, 2005               /s/ John Schoonbrood
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John Schoonbrood, Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

GREGORY D. FLOYD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3828 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 28, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### § 106.47 Assistant Secretary review of sex-based harassment complaints.

The Assistant Secretary will not deem a recipient to have violated this part solely because the Assistant Secretary would have reached a different determination in a particular complaint alleging sex-based harassment than a recipient reached under § 106.45, and if applicable § 106.46, based on the Assistant Secretary's independent weighing of the evidence.

[89 FR 33895, Apr. 29, 2024]
§ 106.23 Recruitment. ( a ) *Nondiscriminatory recruitment.* A recipient to which this subpart applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and admission of students. A recipient may be required to undertake additional recruitment efforts for one sex as remedial action pursuant to § 106.3(a), and may choose to undertake such efforts as affirmative action pursuant to § 106.3(b).
( b ) *Recruitment at certain institutions.* A recipient to which this subpart applies shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at educational institutions, schools or entities which admit as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of this subpart.
[45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020]
EXHIBIT (21)





SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT





As of February 1, 2000





|                                      |  | Jurisdiction in
   
   Which Incorporated
|------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                          |  |                                          
|                                      |  |                                          
|Heller Capital Management,
     Inc.  |  | Delaware                                 
|Heller Financial Leasing,
     Inc.   |  | Delaware                                 
|Heller International
     Group, Inc. |  | Delaware                                 
|Heller Holding France,
     S.A.      |  | France                                   
|Factofrance Heller,
     S.A.         |  | France                                   




The names of all other subsidiaries of the Company are omitted because
   such unnamed subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single
   subsidiary, would not constitute a Significant Subsidiaryas defined
   by the SEC.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code

      I, Steven J. Heyer, the Chief Executive Officer of Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide, Inc. ("Starwood"), certify that (i) the Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Starwood.

                                       /s/ Steven J. Heyer
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Steven J. Heyer
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

                                       March 3, 2005
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 106557 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

 NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PATRICK R. VIELE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 1, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Linda A. Berkowitz, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

G. Scott Walling, Special Prosecutor, Schenectady, for

respondent.

__________

Lahtinen, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga

County (Scarano, J.), rendered January 10, 2014, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted

criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the fifth degree and waived his right to

appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to time served and

five years of probation. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. To the extent that defendant challenges the

validity of his appeal waiver, the plea colloquy and the

counseled written waiver demonstrate that he knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see
-2- 106557 

People v Long, 117 AD3d 1326, 1326 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1003

[2014]; People v Frasier, 105 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2013], lv denied

22 NY3d 1088 [2014]). Defendant's valid appeal waiver forecloses

his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, except insofar as

the alleged ineffective assistance impacted upon the

voluntariness of his plea (see People v Brooks, 118 AD3d 1123,

1124 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 959 [2014]; People v Livziey, 117

AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]). Such claims regarding the voluntariness

of his plea are unpreserved for our review, however, as the

record does not reflect that he made an appropriate

postallocution motion (see People v Terry, 122 AD3d 955, 956

[2014]; People v Osgood, 111 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2013], lv denied 22

NY3d 1089 [2014]). Further, to the extent that defendant alleges

that his plea was not voluntary due to counsel's failure to move

to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds, the

record on appeal is inadequate to assess the merits of the claim,

given the lack of any motion before County Court on the issue,

and, therefore, it could only be raised in a CPL article 440

motion (see People v Slingerland, 101 AD3d 1265, 1267 [2012], lv

denied 20 NY3d 1104 [2013]; People v Obert, 1 AD3d 631, 632

[2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 764 [2004]).

Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Focus and Commitment Letter



 EXHIBIT 10.02 
 FOCUS AND COMMITMENT LETTER 
 Capturing value from our investments and driving Sparkling and Still growth will require
focus and commitment from both of us. To this end, we ask for your agreement to the following planning principles, specific transition terms and next steps. 
 1. Guiding Principle—In consideration of the transfer of Glacéau base business to Coke system bottlers, invest in aligned business plans to profitably accelerate our core business as follows:

 a. Active participation and investment in our 2008+ Sparkling growth strategy: these commitments will be reflected in a mutually agreed and aligned
2008 Business Plan to include testing and introduction of new differentiated packaging and a comprehensive focus on shopper segmented merchandising execution with a plan to build capabilities and capacity to better serve our customers and build our
brands. 
 b. Active participation and investment in a 2008+ Still and Energies brand strategies and plans: these commitments will be reflected in a
mutually agreed and aligned 2008 Business Plan. 
 2. Guiding Principles—Focus and commitment on Glacéau, FUZE and other core and new and
emerging CCNA brands: 
  

	•	 	 Aligned System Focus. Given the increased pressure on the system and the need to ensure that any launches are successful, so long as Bottler continues
to sell Glacéau brands offered under its distribution agreement with Glacéau, Bottler agrees not to introduce any new brand for the next 3 years (through August 31,2010) unless mutually agreed to by both Bottler and CCNA.



  

	 	•	 	 Both parties agree that Arizona is not a System approved brand. 


  

	 	 •
	 	 Both parties also agree that marketing requirements for existing 3rd
 Party brands will not interfere with Company’s plans for its brands (e.g., limiting space available to market Company’s energy brand portfolio). 


  

	 	 •
	 	 This does not apply to line extensions under existing trademarks that Bottler is obligated to introduce under binding,
pre-existing contractual agreements with 3rd party suppliers. 


  

	•	 	 Aligned Growth Strategy Commitment. Bottler agrees to distribute FUZE and NOS as per existing interim FUZE agreement. 


 3. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by Bottler and CCNA, we agree that you will not be required to accept any guiding principle, agreement or commitment set forth or to
be determined as provided herein which is greater or more onerous than imposed on any other Bottler. 
 4. As a next step, we ask that you agree to negotiate
a revised agreement to cover an updated route to market strategy for Powerade as soon as possible to enable the System to more effectively maximize the potential for this Brand. 
 Agreed this 29th day
of August, 2007. 
  

									
	BOTTLER: Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.	 		 	THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA DIVISION
					
	By:	 	 /S/ J. F. BROCK
	 		 	By:	 	 /S/ J.A.M. DOUGLAS

	Title:	 	CEO	 		 	Title:	 	President, CCNA

 – CONFIDENTIAL – 
 FOR INTERNAL SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS ONLY