alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31(b)**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Darrel T. Anderson, VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of IDACORP, Inc.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

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

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date   | March 4, 2004                    | By: | /s/ | *Darrel T. Anderson* |
|--------|----------------------------------|-----|-----|----------------------|
|   | Darrel T. Anderson               |
|   | Vice President, Chief  Financial |
|   | Officer and Treasurer            |
### §824w. Joint boards on economic dispatch

#### (a) In general

The Commission shall convene joint boards on a regional basis pursuant to section 824h of this title to study the issue of security constrained economic dispatch for the various market regions. The Commission shall designate the appropriate regions to be covered by each such joint board for purposes of this section.

#### (b) Membership

The Commission shall request each State to nominate a representative for the appropriate regional joint board, and shall designate a member of the Commission to chair and participate as a member of each such board.

#### (c) Powers

The sole authority of each joint board convened under this section shall be to consider issues relevant to what constitutes "security constrained economic dispatch" and how such a mode of operating an electric energy system affects or enhances the reliability and affordability of service to customers in the region concerned and to make recommendations to the Commission regarding such issues.

#### (d) Report to the Congress

Within 1 year after August 8, 2005, the Commission shall issue a report and submit such report to the Congress regarding the recommendations of the joint boards under this section and the Commission may consolidate the recommendations of more than one such regional joint board, including any consensus recommendations for statutory or regulatory reform.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. II, §223, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, §1298, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 986.)
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

 560

 571

 575

 570

 617

 616

 584

 588

 568

 570

 572

 575

 556

 564

 573

 582

 584

 588

 600

 620

 595

 0

 592

 599

 584

 595

 599

 600

 592

 593

 599

 531

 534

 538

 550

 547

 567

 558

 557

 527

 528

 542

 552

 548

 539

 530

 556

 550

 576

 573

 568

 571

 0

 556

 563

 562

 563

 557

 573

 564

 575

 583

 552

 559

 562

 565

 582

 593

 574

 574

 556

 559

 561

 564

 553

 555

 556

 572

 578

 582

 588

 595

 582

 0

 577

 588

 578

 579

 578

 585

 579

 585

 591

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

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

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 357

 361

 363

 365

 376

 382

 371

 371

 360

 361

 363

 365

 358

 359

 360

 369

 373

 376

 379

 384

 376

 0

 373

 379

 373

 374

 373

 378

 374

 378

 381

TOTAL 17,202

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
### §1204. International parental kidnapping

(a) Whoever removes a child from the United States, or attempts to do so, or retains a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) the term "child" means a person who has not attained the age of 16 years; and

(2) the term "parental rights", with respect to a child, means the right to physical custody of the child—

(A) whether joint or sole (and includes visiting rights); and

(B) whether arising by operation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement of the parties.

(c) It shall be an affirmative defense under this section that—

(1) the defendant acted within the provisions of a valid court order granting the defendant legal custody or visitation rights and that order was obtained pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and was in effect at the time of the offense;

(2) the defendant was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic violence; or

(3) the defendant had physical custody of the child pursuant to a court order granting legal custody or visitation rights and failed to return the child as a result of circumstances beyond the defendant's control, and the defendant notified or made reasonable attempts to notify the other parent or lawful custodian of the child of such circumstances within 24 hours after the visitation period had expired and returned the child as soon as possible.

(d) This section does not detract from The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction, done at The Hague on October 25, 1980.

(Added Pub. L. 103–173, §2(a), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1998; amended Pub. L. 108–21, title I, §107, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 655.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2003—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–21, §107(1), inserted ", or attempts to do so," before "or retains".

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 108–21, §107(2)(A), inserted "or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act" before "and was".

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 108–21, §107(2)(B), inserted "or" after semicolon at end.

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

#### Sense of Congress Regarding Use of Procedures Under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction

Pub. L. 103–173, §2(b), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1999, provided that: "It is the sense of the Congress that, inasmuch as use of the procedures under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction has resulted in the return of many children, those procedures, in circumstances in which they are applicable, should be the option of first choice for a parent who seeks the return of a child who has been removed from the parent."
No. 12,272.

#### Walker *v.*Hunter et al.

Decided December 9, 1929.

*484Mr. B. A. Gates, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. F. F. Hunter, Mr. J, Paul Hill, for defendants in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for libel brought by Nora M. Walker against J. C. Hunter and others. The defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action.

Two causes of action, based upon the same publication, are pleaded in the complaint; the first being for damages for injury to the plaintiff in her business; the second, for damages to the plaintiff’s reputation.

From the complaint it appears that the defendants signed and presented to the board of county commissioners of Adams county a petition worded as follows:

> “Whereas: The management, conduct and existing immoral conditions of the Walker dance hall located % mile east of the Sand Creek bridge of the Brighton road, are such that, said dance hall has become a public nuisance and a detriment to the community at large;

> u Therefore: We, the undersigned, do earnestly petition that you deny a license to and close the said dance hall.”

 The board has full power to grant, refuse to grant, revoke and cancel such licenses. S. L. ’27, ch. 147. The occasion, therefore, was such as to make the publication qualifiedly, or conditionally, privileged. In order to deprive the publication of its privileged character, it must appear that it was made with express malice. The defendants say that the complaint contains no allegation of express malice, and that, as the complaint shows that the publication was qualifiedly, or conditionally, privileged, the demurrer was properly sustained.

In each cause of action it is alleged that the de*485fendants falsely, maliciously and with, intent to injure and prejudice the plaintiff, published the libel; that the publication was false, and at the time of the publication was well known by the defendants to be false; that in committing the tort the defendants were guilty of malice and wilful deceit, and that the injury complained of was attended by circumstances of malice and insult and a wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights and feelings. These allegations sufficiently charge express malice. *Morley v. Post Printing and Publishing Co.,*84 Colo. 41, 268 Pac. 540. In *Hoover v. Jordan,*27 Colo. App. 515, 150 Pac. 333, a case of qualified, or conditional, privilege, the only allegation tending to show express malice was that the defendants got up the petition “to injure the plaintiff, ’ ’ and the court held that this was good as against a general demurrer (pages 522, 523). In 3 Bancroft’s Code Pleading, p. 2922, § 1747, it is said: “But express malice, where necessary, is sufficiently alleged by a simple averment that the publication was made maliciously.”

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in harmony with the views expressed in this opinion.

Mr. Chief Justice Whiteord, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Burke concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Hercules Incorporated 1Q96 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          48,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  427,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    335,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               872,026
<PP&E>                                       2,550,368
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,578,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,480,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          749,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,133
<OTHER-SE>                                     945,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,480,835
<SALES>                                        502,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               502,570
<CGS>                                          325,778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,997
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,148
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,148
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68


</TABLE>
#### Patrick Bouvier HAIRSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7770.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Patrick Bouvier Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Bouvier Hairston appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Hairston v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-704-7 (W-D.Va. Sept. 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *940materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Jefferson 

County 

Lewis & Clark U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

County Bureau of Land Management 

Malta
 

Field Office
 

Missoula 

Field Office 

Lewistown Butte Field Office Field Office
 

Miles City Helena
 

Butte Field Office
 Draft RMP/EIS 

Field

Office
 Billings 

Field Office 

Dillon Map 26: Recreational Opportunity 

Field Office Spectrum (ROS) Classifications 

Broadwater Under Alternative B 

Miles County 0 400 

Townsend 

Anaconda 

Deer Lodge 

Butte County 

Silver Bow
 

County
 

Gallatin 

County 

Livingston Bozeman 

City Interstate 

US Route MT Route 

Rural Park 

Roaded Modified County Roaded Natural 

Semi-Primitive Modified 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized County Boundary 

Field Office Boundary 

Map shows proposed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classifications under
 Alternative B. Proposed management under this alternative consists of:
 36,800 acres of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, 66,500 acres of SemiPrimitive Motorized, 171,100 acres of Roaded Natural, 16,600 acres of
 Miles Roaded Modified, and 11,000 acres in Rural categories. 0 40 

Map Scale 1:510,000 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.
#### GARVIE, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.

(250 N. W. 926.)

(File No. 7642.

Opinion filed November 17, 1933.)

*31
      *Ernest A. Crockett,*of Yankton, for Appellant.

*Erank Biegelmeier,*State’s Attorney, of Yankton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

There was filed in the circuit court of Yank-ton county a petition stating that the plaintiff is the secretary of the Yankton County Laborer’s Association; that one Charles Ingols, a resident of Yankton county, died in said county on the 18th day of October, 1933; that he left no estate sufficient to pay his funeral expenses; that his widow is without means to pay these expenses; that he has no relatives or friends with sufficient means to defray the necessary expenses of burial; that application had been made to the board of county commissioners, prior to the filing of the petition, to give the body of Charles Ingols a decent burial; that the said board refused to b.ury the said body and threatens to send it to the University at Vermillion, S. D'. The petitioner prayed that the county commissioners be directed to show cause why the body should not be buried at the expense of Yankton county, or that the commissioners proceed at once to properly care for such body and give it a decent burial. A return was filed by the chairman of the county commissioners setting forth that the body was in the possession of an undertaker in the city of Yankton; that this undertaker had prepared the same for 'burial; that the said undertaker made application for payment for such burial to the county commissioners; that the county commissioners communicated with the dean of the Department of Medicine of the State University, who requested that the body be sent to the university; that the county has a contract with a fraternal burial association wherein the burial association has a contract to bury all persons to be buried at public expense in Yankton county; and that the undertaker in possession of the body will not release the body until his expenses have been paid. The parties appeared before the court at a time fixed, but what, if anything, transpired at that time does not appear from this record. The court denied the application. There appears in the brief a stipulation purporting to set forth certain facts which áre agreed upon by the parties. However, there appears in the *32order settling the record, the following: “That the record is settled as above noted, except that stipulation of facts which was not called to the attention of the Court at the hearing, but the matter was decided on the Petition and Return; the Court finding the facts stated in each as true and there being no issue of fact therein.”

Upon this kind of a record this court is asked to pass upon the correctness of the order entered by the trial court. It is too apparent for any discussion that the record is not only wholly insufficient, but that there is, in fact, no record before this court upon which to base a decision.

The order appealed from, therefore, is affirmed.

RUDOLPH, P. J., and CAMPBELL, ROBERTS, and WARREN, JJ., concur.

POLLEY, J., not sitting.
Exhibit (a)(11)



                                    AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                              ILLINOVA CORPORATION
                DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CERTAIN DIRECTORS


         WHEREAS,  Illinova  Corporation (the "Company")  maintains the Illinova
Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Certain Directors (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS,  the Company has  determined  that it would be  beneficial  to
contract with Fidelity Institutional Retirement Service Company for provision of
certain record keeping and administrative  services in connection with the Plan,
beginning on or about January 1, 1997,  and,  because of Fidelity  Institutional
Retirement  Service Company's highly automated systems,  Fidelity  Institutional
Retirement Service Company can promptly convert deferred funds into common stock
(or  equivalent  stock  units) so that Plan  participants  may be credited  with
common  stock  ownership  immediately  rather  than on a  quarterly  basis as is
currently provided in the Plan.

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE IT  RESOLVED  that the Plan is hereby  amended  by
adding a new subsection (d) to Section 3, worded as follows:

         "(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if administrators of this Plan have
         the capability to convert funds in the Deferred  Money Accounts  sooner
         or more frequently than on a quarterly basis,  conversions will be made
         as quickly as they may feasibly be accomplished."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of SunGard Data Systems Inc. as of December 31, 1995
and the consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 1995,
both incorporated by reference into the Form 10-K of SunGard Data Systems Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1995, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          79,091
<SECURITIES>                                    36,066
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,426
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               281,163
<PP&E>                                         222,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 579,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,573
<BONDS>                                          3,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                     421,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   579,734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               532,628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  339,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,238<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,672
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
<FN>
<F1>Merger costs associated with poolings-of-interests
</FN>
        

</TABLE>