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

 459

 449

 455

 495

 496

 495

 499

 502

 451

 492

 421

 395

 436

 520

 614

 699

 654

 635

 654

 585

 540

 534

 400

 388

 361

 371

 343

 0

 0

 0

 0

 356

 357

 340

 317

 313

 294

 298

 297

 280

 275

 269

 260

 262

 263

 267

 277

 296

 291

 302

 286

 294

 282

 282

 306

 299

 295

 323

 0

 0

 0

 0

 380

 376

 373

 369

 363

 353

 358

 353

 336

 327

 319

 303

 301

 324

 339

 381

 379

 384

 383

 375

 367

 358

 331

 338

 326

 326

 333

 0

 0

 0

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 251

 248

 247

 244

 240

 234

 237

 234

 224

 218

 213

 203

 202

 216

 226

 251

 250

 253

 253

 248

 243

 237

 221

 225

 217

 217

 222

 0

 0

 0

 0

TOTAL 9,455

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
#### § 342.3 Allegations admitted; no answer filed; no personal appearance requested.

If the answer admits all material allegations in the notice, or if no answer is filed within the 60-day period or any extension thereof and no personal appearance is requested within such period or periods, it shall be deemed to authorize the district director, without further notice to respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the notice and to cancel the certificate, document, or record. No appeal shall lie from such decision. Written notice of the decision shall be served upon the respondent with demand for surrender of the certificate, document, or record forthwith.
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

 548

 618

 575

 552

 572

 608

 618

 618

 623

 666

 683

 696

 713

 702

 704

 697

 683

 678

 657

 646

 638

 642

 612

 666

 626

 649

 620

 619

 608

 607

 444

 452

 471

 472

 534

 545

 563

 581

 561

 579

 628

 660

 654

 649

 651

 648

 629

 629

 618

 597

 598

 598

 581

 585

 567

 565

 556

 546

 531

 533

 471

 509

 512

 524

 553

 573

 594

 599

 603

 624

 657

 681

 690

 682

 683

 681

 666

 658

 639

 626

 617

 617

 596

 615

 599

 591

 585

 570

 559

 556

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 19, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 307

 331

 332

 340

 358

 370

 383

 386

 389

 402

 422

 437

 442

 437

 438

 437

 428

 423

 411

 403

 397

 397

 384

 396

 386

 381

 378

 368

 361

 360

TOTAL 18,130

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
Larson-Davis Incorporated and Subsidiaries

                     EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE CALCULATION

                              Year ended June 30,
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         1996                   1995

<S>                                                               <C>                    <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations                            $  (1,726,082)         $     458,511

Dividends on preferred stock                                              (48,750)                     -
                                                                    --------------         -------------


Income (loss) from continuing operations applicable to
   common stock                                                        (1,774,832)               458,511

Loss from discontinued operations                                               -               (770,128)
                                                                    -------------          --------------


Net loss applicable to common stock                                 $  (1,774,832)         $    (311,617)
                                                                    ==============         ==============

Shares:
   Common shares outstanding during the entire year                     6,559,479              5,827,249

   Weighted average common shares issued during the year                1,579,243                273,743
                                                                    -------------          -------------


   Weighted average common shares outstanding during
     the year                                                           8,138,722              6,100,992

   Dilutive effect of common stock equivalents under stock
     warrants and options                                               1,178,575                126,715
                                                                    -------------          -------------


   Weighted average common and dilutive common
     equivalent shares outstanding                                      9,317,297              6,227,707
                                                                    =============          =============

Earnings (loss) per common share:
   Continuing operations                                            $       (0.19)         $        0.07
   Discontinued operations                                                      -                  (0.12)
                                                                    -------------          --------------


Net earnings (loss)                                                 $       (0.19)         $       (0.05)
                                                                    ==============         ==============

</TABLE>


Because outstanding options and warrants qualify as common stock equivalents,
primary earnings per share and fully diluted earnings per share are the same.
### §57. Yosemite, Sequoia, and General Grant National Parks; exclusive jurisdiction of United States; jurisdiction remaining in and taxation by California

Sole and exclusive jurisdiction is assumed by the United States over the territory embraced and included within the Yosemite National Park, Sequoia National Park, and General Grant National Park, respectively, saving, however, to the State of California the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid parks or either of them in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said State outside of said parks; and saving further to the said State the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said parks, and the right to fix and collect license fees for fishing in said parks; and saving also to the persons residing in any of said parks now or hereafter the right to vote at all elections held within the county or counties in which said parks are situated.

(June 2, 1920, ch. 218, §1, 41 Stat. 731.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

A provision accepting the act of the California Legislature which ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the territory referred to in this section has been omitted as executed.

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

#### General Grant National Park Abolished

Act Mar. 4, 1940, ch. 40, §2, 54 Stat. 43, set out as section 80a of this title, abolished the General Grant National Park and added the lands to the Kings Canyon National Park as the General Grant grove section.
§ 34.16 Issuance of the hearing decision. ( a ) *Date of decision.* The hearing official issues a written opinion stating his or her decision, as soon as practicable, but not later than 60 days after the date on which we received the request for hearing.
( b ) If we do not provide you with a hearing and render a decision within 60 days after we receive your request for a hearing— ( 1 ) We do not issue a garnishment order until the hearing is held and a decision rendered; or
( 2 ) If we have already issued a garnishment order to your employer, we suspend the garnishment order beginning on the 61st day after we receive the hearing request until we provide a hearing and issue a decision.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3720D)
#### Insurance Company of North America, appellee, v. Gustave A. Ackerman et al., appellants.

Filed February 20, 1901.

No. 9,390.

1. Judicial Sale: Appraisement: Attack: Fraud: Post Hoc. An appraisement of property made for the purpose of a judicial sale, can not he successfully attacked after the sale except on the ground of fraud.

2.-: -: Confirmation: Objections: Allegations. It is' not error to refuse to vacate a judicial sale on the ground that the *313appraisement was fraudulent, if the objections to the confirmation contain no allegation of fraud or other improper conduct on the part of the appraisers.

Appeal from the district court for Douglas county. Heard below before Kbysór, J.

*Affirmed.*

*George 0. Calder,*for appellants.

*Gregory, Day & Day, contra.*

Per Curiam.

The order under review confirms a sale of real estate made in execution of a decree of foreclosure. The motion for confirmation was resisted by appellant on two grounds: (1) That the register of deeds included in his certificate to the special master commissioner the mortgage which was the basis of the decree; and (2) that the appraisers’ valuation of the property was too low. There was no attack on the appraisement prior to the sale; and after the sale it could be questioned only for fraud. *Ecklund v. Willis,*44 Nebr., 129; *Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall,*45 Nebr., 601; *Jarrett v. Hoover.,*54 Nebr., 65; *Ballou v. Sherwood,*58 Nebr., 20. The evidence of fraud is not, by any means, convincing; but.if it were conclusive, it would not impose upon the court the duty of setting the sale aside, since there was no allegation of a fraudulent appraisement. *Brown v. Fitzpatrick,*56 Nebr., 61; *Nelson v. Alling,*58 Nebr., 606. The order of confirmation is

Affirmed.
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

 931

 912

 867

 819

 869

 868

 940

 765

 951

 868

 892

 904

 914

 962

 987

 1,000

 958

 1,037

 1,033

 955

 877

 820

 658

 635

 790

 456

 409

 291

 812

 728

 556

 532

 572

 586

 577

 486

 498

 501

 563

 515

 572

 664

 738

 847

 798

 951

 882

 911

 952

 866

 823

 614

 341

 446

 571

 210

 116

 111

 122

 583

 762

 728

 724

 708

 741

 594

 739

 564

 765

 680

 753

 767

 841

 920

 874

 971

 910

 985

 1,001

 916

 850

 768

 477

 529

 697

 313

 222

 169

 599

 645

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 6, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 487

 466

 463

 454

 474

 383

 473

 365

 489

 436

 481

 490

 536

 585

 556

 616

 578

 625

 635

 582

 541

 491

 311

 343

 447

 209

 153

 120

 386

 415

TOTAL 21,212

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Executive Officer

I, Gerard Dab, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report of VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp.;

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

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

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

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) 	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal 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 financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) 	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: May 13, 2005 | /s/ Gerald Dab             
|------------------ | ---------------------------
|                   | Gerard Dab                 
|                   | Principal Executive Officer

---
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

 399

 438

 446

 450

 497

 529

 497

 502

 511

 539

 539

 532

 511

 500

 505

 494

 494

 519

 513

 529

 510

 512

 547

 567

 534

 530

 562

 566

 566

 585

 575

 340

 337

 355

 384

 390

 384

 365

 394

 411

 451

 455

 453

 470

 417

 437

 427

 409

 415

 419

 449

 455

 424

 437

 448

 471

 482

 475

 476

 532

 496

 500

 378

 394

 403

 410

 423

 430

 429

 450

 462

 482

 490

 494

 487

 474

 478

 471

 462

 465

 475

 473

 475

 471

 482

 496

 507

 516

 525

 530

 549

 541

 544

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 2, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 250

 259

 265

 269

 277

 282

 281

 294

 302

 314

 319

 321

 317

 309

 311

 307

 302

 303

 310

 308

 310

 307

 314

 323

 329

 335

 340

 344

 355

 350

 352

TOTAL 14,666

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
### §973b. Regulations

The Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and after consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall issue regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Treaty and this chapter. These regulations shall be made applicable as necessary to all persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, wherever located.

(Pub. L. 100–330, §4, June 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 592.)

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

#### Effective Date

Authority to promulgate regulations effective on June 7, 1988, with any such regulation not to be effective before date on which Treaty enters into force for the United States, see section 21 of Pub. L. 100–330, set out as an Effective Date note under section 973 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
#### § 603.25 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.

[84 FR 58931, Nov. 1, 2019]
(No. 73-CC-146

#### The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed February 14, 1974.*

*221The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

This cause coming on to be heard on the Joint Stipulation of the parties hereto and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

This court finds that the claimant filed a Complaint against the State of Illinois alleging that they made an overpayment of privilege tax payments.

A Stipulation has been entered into by and between the claimant and the State of Illinois stating that, based upon Departmental Reports filed in said cause, there has been an overpayment of $56,241.72. The evidence indicates that said overpayment of privilege tax payments was deposited with the office of the Director, Department of Insurance, and was then transferred to the General Revenue Fund by the State of Illinois.

Evidence also discloses that claimant made a demand for said refund, which demand was refused.

It appears from the evidence and from the Stipulation that the claimant is entitled to said sum of $56,241.72 and it is hereby ordered that the sum of $56,241.72 be awarded to claimant in full satisfaction of any and all claims presented to the State of Illinois under the above captioned cause.
EXHIBIT 23.1







             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of
Herley  Industries,  Inc.  on Form S-8  [File  numbers  333-145503,  333-121554,
333-71476,  333-95327,  333-46777 and 333-17369] of our report dated October 20,
2008, with respect to our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements and
related consolidated financial statement schedule of Herley Industries, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of August 3, 2008 and July 29, 2007 and for the fifty-three (53)
weeks ended August 3, 2008 and the fifty-two  (52) weeks ended July 29, 2007 and
July 30, 2006 and our audit  report  dated  October 20, 2008 with respect to our
audit of the  effectiveness  of internal  control  over  financial  reporting of
Herley Industries, Inc. as of August 3, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Herley Industries, Inc. for the fifty-three (53) weeks ended August
3, 2008.

/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP
-------------------------

Marcum & Kliegman LLP
Melville, New York
October 21, 2008
#### In the Matter of David G. Pollock, Appellant, against Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, Respondent.

*697All concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Fisher, Appellant, against Savage Arms Corporation et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

May 15, 2017

DAILY CVP WATER SUPPLY REPORT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 RUN DATE:

RESERVOIR RELEASES IN CUBIC FEET/SECOND

TRINITY

SACRAMENTO

FEATHER

AMERICAN

STANISLAUS

SAN JOAQUIN

LEWISTON

KESWICK

OROVILLE (SWP)

NIMBUS

GOODWIN

FRIANT

RESERVOIR MEDIAN 2015 2016 15

 438

 6,542

 1,200

 753

 154

 221

 464

 7,365

 4,000

 1,611

 152

 387

RESERVOIR CAPACITY YR AVG

TRINITY

SHASTA

OROVILLE (SWP)

FOLSOM

NEW MELONES

FED. SAN LUIS

2015 2016

 546

 1,603

 1,057

 174

 268

 74

 969

 2,811

 1,619

 306

 528

 71

 15

STORAGE IN MAJOR RESERVOIRS IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

MILLERTON 

TOTAL NORTH CVP 

 193 231

 2,665 4,685

2,448

4,552

3,538

977

2,420

966

520

11,363

% OF 15YR AVG 

RESERVOIR CURRENT

YR AVG

TRINITY

SHASTA

FOLSOM

NEW MELONES

1983

 2,888

 10,794

 6,541

 2,747

 1,422

 5,335

 2,537

 966

 15

MILLERTON 1,126 4,705

DRIEST % OF

ACCUMULATED INFLOW FOR WATER YEAR TO DATE IN THOUSANDS OF ACRE-FEET

WY WY 

WETTEST

WY 

YR

AVG

 15

2016 1977

DAM YR

RESERVOIR

CURRENT

TRINITY AT

FISH HATCHERY

SACRAMENTO AT 

SHASTA DAM 

AMERICAN AT 

BLUE CANYON

STANISLAUS AT

NEW MELONES

1983

 58.58

 116.63

 105.60

 46.79

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

SAN JOAQUIN AT

HUNTINGTON LK 

 85.00 0.00

DRIEST 

ACCUMULATED PRECIPITATION FOR WATER YEAR TO DATE IN INCHES

WY WY 

WETTEST

WY 

% OF

2016 1977 AVG

AVG

(N YRS)

 225

 2,628

 356

 0

 377

 16.35

 26.44

 18.28

 0.00

 17.60

 34.02

 65.12

 77.18

 30.89

 35.63

 460

 7,027

 2,500

 1,521

 204

 252

 1,408 69

 2,394

 1,821

 456

 1,234

 257

 246

 5,749

 117

 89

 67

 43

 28

 94

 81

 32.39

 1,231

 5,098

 2,288

 923

 1,478

 116

 105

 111

 105

 76

 105

 62.31

 65.44

 26.99

 41.75

 105

 118

 114

 85

 54

 59

 41

 38

 41

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

 LAST 

24 HRS

WY WY

WY WY
September 10, 2015

Mr. John E. Tremba

Straight Up Photography

404 Stadium Road

Connellsville, PA 15425

Dear Mr. Tremba :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2) and (c), 91.103, 91.109(a),

91.119, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) of

and part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federa l Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 3, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Straight Up Photography filed

in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2640 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your re quest.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

a t least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34