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

 6,050

 5,777

 6,109

 6,345

 6,426

 6,947

 7,915

 8,181

 8,224

 7,878

 7,527

 7,759

 8,135

 7,194

 6,479

 5,363

 5,133

 5,398

 6,645

 8,244

 9,376

 9,459

 10,032

 10,579

 10,498

 9,955

 9,775

 9,437

 7,289

 7,157

 1,025

 812

 967

 1,226

 1,295

 1,392

 1,435

 1,059

 845

 879

 760

 932

 1,061

 838

 754

 776

 820

 1,154

 2,094

 2,535

 2,188

 1,587

 1,469

 1,603

 1,825

 1,688

 1,855

 2,155

 1,328

 1,423

 3,540

 3,376

 3,106

 3,126

 3,500

 3,857

 4,464

 4,565

 4,316

 4,032

 3,938

 4,002

 4,335

 3,648

 3,488

 2,832

 3,045

 3,564

 4,214

 4,475

 5,031

 5,501

 5,636

 6,267

 6,412

 6,159

 6,049

 6,180

 5,162

 4,598

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

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

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 34,204

 35,150

 36,613

 38,597

 40,707

 42,965

 45,708

 48,162

 50,086

 51,239

 52,021

 52,528

 53,412

 53,805

 53,753

 53,209

 53,148

 53,586

 54,300

 54,918

 55,485

 56,421

 57,741

 59,976

 62,450

 64,607

 66,321

 68,853

 70,527

 72,293

 2,443

 2,511

 2,615

 2,757

 2,908

 3,069

 3,265

 3,440

 3,578

 3,660

 3,716

 3,752

 3,815

 3,843

 3,840

 3,801

 3,796

 3,828

 3,879

 3,923

 3,963

 4,030

 4,124

 4,284

 4,461

 4,615

 4,737

 4,918

 5,038

 5,164

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### Part B—Functions of Federal Agencies
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 21.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Place of          Percentage of
Name                                Incorporation     Equity Interest Held
----                                -------------     --------------------
<S>                                 <C>               <C>
Allrich Holdings Limited            Hong Kong         100%

China Pacific Capital Limited       The British       100%
                                    Virgin Islands

China Pacific Management Limited    The British       100%
                                    Virgin Islands

China Pacific Corporation Limited   Hong Kong         100%

China Pacific Steel Limited         The British       100%
                                    Virgin Islands

Chengdu Chengkang Iron and
   Steel Company Limited (PRC)      The Peoples'       60%
                                    Republic of China

Chengdu Chengkang Iron and          The British        60%
   Steel (BUD) Limited              Virgin Islands

Chi Kiu Company, Limited            Hong Kong         100%

Expert Fame Limited                 Hong Kong         100%

Lafayette Services Limited          The British       100%
                                    Virgin Islands

Powerich Property Limited           Hong Kong         100%     
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7802]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-836]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico; Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 29, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the initiation of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe 
and tube from Mexico, covering the period of August 1, 2009, to July 
31, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 
(September 29, 2010). The current deadline for the preliminary results 
of this review is May 3, 2011.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Review

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires that the Department complete the preliminary results of 
an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the 
anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, 
if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time 
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend 
the 245 day time period for the preliminary results up to 365 days.
    The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the 
preliminary results of this review within the original time frame 
because additional information from both mandatory respondents, 
Regiomontana de Perfiles S.A. de C.V. (Regiomontana) and Maquilacero 
S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero), is necessary to complete our analysis. 
Because the Department requires additional time to obtain and analyze 
this information, it is not practicable to complete this review within 
the original time limit (i.e., May 3, 2011). Accordingly, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results of this administrative review until no later than 
August 31, 2011, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary 
month of this order. We intend to issue the final results no later than 
120 days after publication of the preliminary results notice.
    This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-7802 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
### §970. Protection of property occupied by foreign governments

(a) Whoever willfully injures, damages, or destroys, or attempts to injure, damage, or destroy, any property, real or personal, located within the United States and belonging to or utilized or occupied by any foreign government or international organization, by a foreign official or official guest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) Whoever, willfully with intent to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass—

(1) forcibly thrusts any part of himself or any object within or upon that portion of any building or premises located within the United States, which portion is used or occupied for official business or for diplomatic, consular, or residential purposes by—

(A) a foreign government, including such use as a mission to an international organization;

(B) an international organization;

(C) a foreign official; or

(D) an official guest; or

(2) refuses to depart from such portion of such building or premises after a request—

(A) by an employee of a foreign government or of an international organization, if such employee is authorized to make such request by the senior official of the unit of such government or organization which occupies such portion of such building or premises;

(B) by a foreign official or any member of the foreign official's staff who is authorized by the foreign official to make such request;

(C) by an official guest or any member of the official guest's staff who is authorized by the official guest to make such request; or

(D) by any person present having law enforcement powers;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(c) For the purpose of this section "foreign government", "foreign official", "international organization", and "official guest" shall have the same meanings as those provided in section 1116(b) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 92–539, title IV, §401, Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1073; amended Pub. L. 94–467, §7, Oct. 8, 1976, 90 Stat. 2000; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §601(a)(2), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–294 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $500" in concluding provisions.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".

1976—Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 94–467 added subsec. (b), redesignated former subsec. (b) as (c), and struck out reference to section 1116(c) of this title.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-02-15T01:34:58-0500
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 86 Filed 01/27/20 Entered 01/28/20 10:53:23 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 86 Filed 01/27/20 Entered 01/28/20 10:53:23 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 86 Filed 01/27/20 Entered 01/28/20 10:53:23 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case 19-36077-KLP Doc 86 Filed 01/27/20 Entered 01/28/20 10:53:23 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 4
p130473.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0473

Focus Ready Draft 6/20/2013

ENGINEER: Austin \ REC

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

 

 

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Local exhaust ventilation may be necessary to

control any air contaminants to within their TLVs during

the use of this product. If local exhaust ventilation is

not available, general (mechanical) ventilation is

acceptable. // Safety goggles. // PVC gloves. //

Impermeable protective clothing.

Respirator: In case of insufficient ventilation,

respiratory protective equipment: cartridge for organic

gases and vapors.

Health Effects: Eyes and Skin: Prolonged and repeated

contact may cause irritation. // Ingestion and Inhalation:

 No harmful effects have been reported. // Target Organs:

Eyes, Skin.

TLV/PEL:

CRSS (06/06/2013):

 

 

Page 1
p130473.eng

Consumer Use: 

SAT (concerns) (06/07/2013):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox:

 // Human Health: 

Migration to groundwater: 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

 

Page 2
p130473.eng

Page 3
p130473.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0473

Number of Sites/ Location: 

 

Days/yr: 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

 

Page 4
p130473.eng

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Inhalation:

Dermal:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: 

PMN: 13-0473

Number of Sites/ Location: 

 

Days/yr: 

Basis:

 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

 

Page 5
p130473.eng

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis:

Inhalation:

Dermal:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0473

Use: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Page 6
p130473.eng

 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 7
p130473.eng

 

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis:

Inhalation:

Dermal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p130473.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 9
§ 682.709 Reimbursements, refunds, and offsets. ( a ) As part of a limitation or termination proceeding, the Secretary, or a designated Departmental official, may require a lender or third-party servicer to take reasonable corrective action to remedy a violation of applicable laws, regulations, special arrangements, agreements, or limitations entered into under the authority of statutes applicable to Title IV of the HEA.
( b ) The corrective action may include payment to the Secretary or recipients designated by the Secretary of any funds, and any interest thereon, that the lender, or, in the case of a third-party servicer, the servicer or the lender that has a contract with a third-party servicer, improperly received, withheld, disbursed, or caused to be disbursed. A third-party servicer may be held liable up to the amounts specified in § 682.413(a)(2).
( c ) If a final decision requires a lender, a lender that has a contract with a third-party servicer, or a third-party servicer to reimburse or make any payment to the Secretary, the Secretary may, without further notice or opportunity for a hearing, proceed to offset or arrange for another Federal agency to offset the amount due against any interest benefits, special allowance, or other payments due to the lender, the lender that has a contract with the third-party servicer, or the third-party servicer. A third-party servicer may be held liable up to the amounts specified in § 682.413(a)(2).
( d ) In any action under this part based on a violation of the prohibitions in section 435(d)(5) of the Act, if the Secretary, the designated Department official, or the hearing official finds that the lender provided or offered the payments or activities described in paragraph (5)(i) of the definition of “lender” in § 682.200(b), the Secretary or the official applies a rebuttable presumption that the payments or activities were offered or provided to secure applications for FFEL loans. To reverse the presumption, the lender must present evidence that the activities or payments were provided for a reason unrelated to securing applications for FFEL loans or securing FFEL loan volume.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1080, 1082, 1094)
[59 FR 22459, Apr. 29, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 65822, Nov. 1, 2013]
(No. 74-CC-121

#### Alter & Sons, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 12, 1973.*

Alter & Sons, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

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

Per Curiam.
#### Alvin M. Miller et al. v. Neely & Westover.

Filed January 3, 1900.

No. 9,087.

1. Mechanics’ Liens: Foreclosure: Evidence. Evidence *held*sufficient to sustain a decree foreclosing a mechanic’s lien.

2. Review: New.Trial: Questions not Raised Below. In an error proceeding to review a decree sustaining’ a mechanic’s lien this court will not examine the record to ascertain whether the amount of recovery was excessive, where the point was not raised in the trial court in the motion for a new trial.

*540Error from the district court of Box Butte county. Tried below before Kinraid, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Smith P. Tuttle,*for plaintiffs in error.

*W. M. Iodence, contra.*

Norval, J.

This suit was instituted in the district court by the Des Moines Manufacturing & Supply Company to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for labor and material furnished in the construction of a flouring mill. Neely & Westover and others were made defendants, and Alvin M. Miller, Edward S. Wildy and N. J. T. Orr were permitted to intervene in the cause. Neely & Westover filed an answer and cross-petition, claiming a mechanic’s lien on the same premises for labor performed in the construction of the mill. Miller and Wildy claimed to have purchased the interest of Henry J. Schluntz, one of the original owners of the property, and which interest they set up by appropriate pleading. N. J. T. Orr pleaded that he had acquired the interest óf Josiah Thomas, the other original owner of the premises. A decree of foreclosure was entered.sustaining the liens of plaintiff and Neely & Westover, and Miller and 'Wildy have brought the record here for review by error proceeding.

The decree, to the extent that it awarded Neeley & Westover a mechanic’s lien, is assailed as not being supported by the evidence. The written contract between the lienors and the original owners of the premises was sufficient on which to predicate a lien, although such contract was not personally signed by Henry J. Schluntz, one of the joint owners of the premises. It was executed for him by the other owner, Joseph Thomas, and the mill was erected by Neely & Westover in pursuance of the contract, with the knowledge and consent of Schluntz. It is true that Neely & Westover, by the terms of the *541contract, were to receive as part compensation for tlieir labor in erecting the mill promissory notes against them to the amount of $785, but this fact would not defeat a mechanic’s lien, inasmuch, as- part of the consideration wag to be paid in money. As to that amount, at least, the contract was sufficient to support a lien, and there is no assignment in the motion for a new trial or petition in error that the amount of the lienors’ recovery was excessive.

It also insisted that the claim of Neely *&*Westover for a lien was not filed in time. The evidence adduced upon the trial was ample to sustain a finding that the last labor performed by them in the erection of the building under the contract was within four months prior to the filing of the lien statement. This was sufficient. There is no error in the record, and the decree is

Aeeirmed.
CVC Water Delivery Records

Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Red indicates Scheduled Data Green indicates Confirmed Delivery Data Contract Water Year Allocated Supply = 20%

Blue indicates Actual Data Peach Cells indicate Article 55 Actions Deliveries to or on Behalf of CVC Contractors (Includes Allocated Supply or Acquired Water)

Feb-21

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

AEWSD Recirc via 

County of Fresno 

CVC Contract 

SWPAO#20-302

2/1/2021

2/2/2021

2/3/2021

2/4/2021

2/5/2021

2/6/2021

2/7/2021

2/8/2021

2/9/2021

2/10/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/11/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/12/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/13/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/14/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/15/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/16/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/17/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/18/2021 43 AF 43 AF 43 AF

2/19/2021 14 AF 14 AF 14 AF

2/20/2021

2/21/2021

2/22/2021

2/23/2021

2/24/2021

2/25/2021

2/26/2021

2/27/2021

2/28/2021

Monthly Total 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 401 AF 401 AF 0 AF 0 AF 401 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

Running total delivered for each individual action= 0 AF 401 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

Note:

Contract Water Year 2020 (Mar 1, 2020 to Feb 28, 2021 Breakdown of CVC Supply, Article 55 and Transfer In Deliveries

Mar 1, 2020 to 

Feb 28, 2021 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 Total Delivered

Year to Date Contract 

Wtr Yr Total 3,477 AF 22,284 AF 100 AF 0 AF 0 AF 6,935 AF 5,029 AF 1,500 AF 10,660 AF 5,629 AF 669 AF 228 AF 1,062 AF 6,220 AF 6,220 AF 30,688 AF

V:\~WATER\~SMITH\Cross Valley Contractor Deliveries Info\03-2020 to 02-2021\Master 03_2020 to 02_2021 CVC Deliveries.xlsx 9/30/2021 1:45 PM
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL

- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0772n.06

Case No. 13

- 6508

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

RICHARD CHESTER NORRIS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEFORE: McKEAGUE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and POLSTER, District Judge. 

PER CURIAM

. Defendant Richard Chester Norris pled guilty to knowingly selling a
firearm to a person prohibited from possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1).
On November 5, 2013, he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Norris

chall enges the sentence as procedurally unreasonable. He contends the district court improperly
applied a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), based on the finding that he
used the firearm in connection with another felony. Although the gover nment originally opposed
Norris’s claim of error, following oral arguments in this appeal, the government has
acknowledged that Norris did not “use” the firearm. That is, the government has conceded “that
defendant did not carry out any purpose or action by means of the firearm when he told [Ronnie]

 Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.Case No. 13

- 6508

United States v. Norris

- 2

- Mutter to dispose of it” . . . but only “sought Mutter’s cooperation as to another felony which

involved the firearm.” Based on this concession, the government has joined with Norris in
moving the court to vac ate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

We find the motion well taken. M erely instructing the presumed owner of the firearm to
“get rid of it” because it was evidence in a pending murder investigation

— where Norris

exe r cise d no authority or influence over Mutter, where Mutter did not in fact own or possess the

firearm , and where the instruction did not result in the desired impact on the firearm

— is not
“use” of the firearm in connection with another felony. Accordingly, notw ithstanding the “due
deference” owed to the district court’s sentencing determination, see United States v. Stafford
,
721 F.3d 380, 400

– 01 (6th Cir. 2013), we f ind the sentence enhancement improper . We

therefore VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resenten cing. 1

1 Our ruling should not be construed as precluding the district court’s consideration of Norris’s communication with Mutter in fashioning an appropriate sentence. We hold simply that enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is not appropriate on the facts of record.
### §9. Vessel of the United States defined

The term "vessel of the United States", as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 685.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §501 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §310, 35 Stat. 1148).

Section is made applicable to the entire title rather than to sections 481 et seq. of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

Minor changes in phraseology were made.