alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TO:               PHIL HUSTON                                  DECEMBER 30, 1994
FROM:             ROBERT S. HERMAN

REF:              INDEPENDENT SALES REPRESENTATIVE AGREEMENT dated 28 MARCH
                  1990 FIRST AMENDMENT to the above document dated MARCH 1,
                  1991 specifically: AMENDMENT "A", II. B.

RE:               ADJUSTMENT OF THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM MONTHLY PETROLEUM FEE
                  and the implementation of shared revenue from ALTERNET
                  delivery of message traffic.



1) Effective March 1, 1995, the MINIMUM MONTHLY  PETROLEUM FEE will be increased
from the  current  figure  of $44.00  per unit per month to $50.00  per unit per
month.  This amount will remain in place until the next adjustment date of March
1, 1997.

2)  Effective  April  1,  1995  DTN  is  projected  to  have  recovered  initial
developmental,   implementation,   overhead,   and  operational  costs  for  the
telephone-based  system  known  as  ALTERNET.  With the  understanding  that DTN
retains full rights to recover further  expansion,  development,  overhead,  and
operational  costs  as they may  occur in the  future,  DTN will  undertake  the
inclusion of Revenues, less the above-referenced  expenses and less direct phone
line or VAN  expenses,  into the  general  pool of funds  subject to our revenue
sharing  agreement.  Under this agreement,  Mr. Huston will receive 40% of these
revenues.

The  determination  of all amounts and all  appropriateness  of allocations  for
recoverable expenses relating to Alternet operations is solely at the discretion
of DTN,  and my be changed at any time by DTN,  and my be changed at any time by
DTN according to the then-existing situation. Changes to the expense withholding
amount from  Alternet  gross  revenues are not tied to the two-year  cycle as is
item #1 above.

By way of reference, DTN's budgeting projections would indicate that the ongoing
expense  level on a  month-to-month  basis  will be in the range of  $5,000  per
month.  This  includes  operations,  implementation  of  upgrades,  and overhead
allocations.  It does not include further  hardware for additional  expansion of
the system beyond that which will be paid for by April 1, 1995.

3) All other terms, including various letters of understanding, remain unchanged
other than as amended herein.

ACKNOWLEDGED ON THIS DATE

/s/ Robert S. Herman                             /s/ Phil Huston
-------------------------------                --------------------------------
Robert S. Herman                               Phil Huston
Senior Vice President                          Independent Sales Representative
Data Transmission Network Corp.                DTNergy


Date                                           Date 
      -------------------------                     ---------------------------

                                      151
<PAGE>
### §3104. Issuance of search warrant; contents—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Issuance of search warrant on affidavit; contents to identify persons or place; command to search forthwith, Rule 41(c).

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 819.)
(No. 77-CC-1430

#### Ira J. Coleman, Jr., Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 2, 1978.*

Polos, C.J.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

Claimant has established that when he was transferred from the Minimum Security Unit of the State-ville Correctional Center to the wall enclosed compound, certain items of underclothing, towels, a safety razor and cigarette lighter, having the value of $20.81, were not delivered to him.

Respondent has acknowledged its liability for the loss of these items.

This Court held in *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reason*692able care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.

While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:

> “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession "thereof.” 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing *Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App.2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.*

In *Chesterfield,*the Court quotes from *Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So2d. 172, at 174,*as follows;

> “An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”

The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.

At the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant’s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.

Claimant’s prima facie case therefore stands unrebutted.

*693It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $20.81.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

October 2003

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Delta Smelt Splittail Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day

SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Total Average

1-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 3413 4399 7811 6769 8725 15494

2-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 3796 4392 8188 7529 8711 16240

3-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 4250 4377 8627 8429 8682 17111

4-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 3399 4373 7772 6742 8673 15415

5-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 2959 4349 7308 5870 8626 14496

6-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 2952 4359 7311 5856 8646 14502

7-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 2938 4363 7302 5828 8655 14483

8-Oct-03 0 0 0 6 0 6 2984 4372 7356 5919 8672 14591

9-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 2928 4368 7295 5807 8663 14470

10-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 3710 4146 7856 7359 8224 15583

11-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 3433 4540 7973 6809 9006 15815

12-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 3154 4356 7510 6256 8641 14897

13-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 2493 4374 6866 4944 8675 13619

14-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2441 4366 6807 4841 8660 13501

15-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1983 4384 6367 3933 8695 12628

16-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1899 4386 6284 3766 8699 12465

17-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2423 4384 6807 4806 8696 13502

18-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1798 4417 6215 3567 8761 12328

19-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 4327 4516 375 8582 8957

20-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5185 4329 9514 10285 8587 18872

21-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3306 4375 7680 6557 8677 15234

22-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4064 4379 8443 8060 8686 16746

23-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4036 4358 8394 8005 8644 16649

24-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4058 4343 8402 8050 8615 16665

25-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3601 4348 7949 7142 8625 15767

26-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5052 4495 9547 10021 8915 18936

27-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3718 4450 8168 7375 8826 16201

28-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2152 4543 6695 4268 9011 13279

29-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1709 4368 6076 3389 8663 12052

30-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 585 3349 3933 1160 6642 7802

31-Oct-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 366 2801 3167 726 5555 6281

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 6 0 6 XXXX 90972 133168 224140 180443 264138 444581

Delta Smelt Take Levels

Below Normal Water Year Type

Yellow Light Level = 400 (14-day Average)

Red Light Level = 6,440 (October-Below Normal)

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
#### Max Herring, as Administrator of the Estate of Pearl Herring, Deceased, Respondent, v. J. B. Slattery & Bros., Inc., Respondent, and New York City Housing Authority, Defendant-Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish any actionable negligence against the landlord.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

September-05

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Delta Smelt Splittail Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day

SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Total Average

1-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7,064 4,437 11,501 14,011 8,801 22,812 0.0 2-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7,067 4,437 11,504 14,017 8,801 22,818 0.0 3-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7,078 4,382 11,460 14,039 8,692 22,731 0.0 4-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7,059 4,378 11,437 14,002 8,684 22,686 0.0 5-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,064 4,403 11,468 14,012 8,734 22,746 0.0 6-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,070 4,414 11,484 14,024 8,755 22,779 0.0 7-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,064 4,405 11,469 14,012 8,737 22,749 0.0 8-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,064 4,389 11,453 14,012 8,706 22,718 0.0 9-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,068 4,393 11,461 14,020 8,713 22,733 0.0 

10-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7,072 4,381 11,453 14,027 8,690 22,717 0.0 11-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6,914 4,388 11,302 13,713 8,704 22,417 0.0 12-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7,248 4,317 11,564 14,376 8,562 22,938 0.0 13-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7,370 4,348 11,719 14,619 8,625 23,244 0.0 14-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,330 4,322 11,653 14,540 8,573 23,113 0.0 

15-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 1 7,327 4,366 11,693 14,534 8,659 23,193 0.0 16-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7,431 4,369 11,800 14,740 8,665 23,405 0.0 17-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 1 7,370 4,379 11,749 14,618 8,686 23,304 0.0 18-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 6 12 18 3 7,207 4,367 11,573 14,295 8,661 22,956 0.0 19-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 3 7,057 4,070 11,127 13,997 8,073 22,070 0.0 20-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6,878 4,228 11,106 13,642 8,387 22,029 0.0 21-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6,736 4,464 11,200 13,360 8,855 22,215 0.0 22-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6,971 4,375 11,346 13,826 8,678 22,504 0.0 23-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6,829 4,336 11,166 13,546 8,601 22,147 0.0 24-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7,065 4,350 11,415 14,013 8,628 22,641 0.0 25-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 4 7,056 4,381 11,437 13,995 8,690 22,685 0.0 26-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7,399 4,341 11,740 14,676 8,610 23,286 0.0 27-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7,155 4,358 11,513 14,191 8,645 22,836 0.0 28-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7,065 4,363 11,428 14,013 8,655 22,668 0.0 29-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7,253 4,346 11,599 14,386 8,621 23,007 0.0 30-Sep-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7,206 4,353 11,559 14,293 8,635 22,928 0.0 

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 12 48 60 XXXX 213,536 130,842 344,379 423,549 259,526 683,075 XXXX 

Delta Smelt Incidental Take LevelsBelow Normal Water Year TypeDelta smelt risk assessment matrix (DSRM) Adult level of concern = 892Re-consultation level for September = 100

Delta 

Daily D

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined SWP
No. 12,383.

#### Martin, et al., *v.*Way, Receiver.

Decided July 1, 1929.

Rehearing denied September 16, 1929.

*233Mr. Edwin H. Park, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Harvey Riddell, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Alter

delivered the opinion of the court.

William A. Way, as receiver of the Kittamac Mines Company, a corporation, defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, brought this action in the district court to enjoin and restrain Norman P. Bawden, as treasurer of the county of San Juan, state of Colorado, from issuing, and Samuel Gf. Martin from demanding and receiving, a treasurer’s deed to certain property involved in receivership proceedings pending in San Juan county. Bawden and Martin will hereinafter be referred to as defendants. Service of process was had, and a notice of application for a temporary injunction was served. At the time of the hearing on the application, the defendants filed a general demurrer, which was overruled, and the temporary injunction issued. The defendants have sued out a writ of error, and ask for a supersedeas, which application is resisted by the plaintiff, and he asks that the supersedeas be denied, and the writ dismissed.

Section 425, Code of Civil Procedure, 1921, provides: “* * * Writs of error shall lie from the supreme court to every final judgment, decree or order * **** in all actions, suits and proceedings, * * *”

 The record before us discloses that the only action taken by the trial court was the overruling of a de*234murrer, and the granting' of a temporary injunction. The defendants announced that they would stand on their demurrer and it was incumbent upon them if they desired the action thereon reviewed by this court to thereafter see that a judgment was entered. This they did not do. It does not require the citation of authorities to establish the fact that the trial court’s action did not amount to the rendition of a final judgment.

We shall treat the opposition of the plaintiff to the granting of a supersedeas as a motion to dismiss, and as such it is granted.

Writ dismissed at the costs of the defendants.

Mr. Chief Justice Whitford, Mr. Justice Adams, and Mr. Justice Campbell concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00176-CV

IN RE JEFFREY MANN RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 15-09620-393

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 16, 2016

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             415
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   415
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                         235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       415
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,185)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)


</TABLE>
#### § 645.34 How long is a project period?

A project period under the Upward Bound program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

[75 FR 65787, Oct. 26, 2010]
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

 622

 617

 608

 602

 579

 565

 564

 559

 553

 551

 549

 549

 546

 546

 542

 541

 539

 537

 534

 530

 528

 525

 517

 516

 514

 512

 511

 512

 510

 510

 510

 616

 608

 602

 572

 564

 563

 559

 552

 532

 548

 547

 529

 544

 541

 540

 539

 535

 533

 529

 527

 523

 516

 512

 512

 511

 509

 509

 507

 509

 509

 507

 619

 613

 606

 590

 572

 565

 562

 557

 551

 550

 548

 547

 545

 544

 541

 540

 538

 535

 532

 529

 527

 521

 515

 514

 513

 510

 510

 510

 510

 510

 509

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 20, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 399

 395

 391

 381

 369

 365

 363

 360

 357

 356

 355

 354

 353

 352

 350

 350

 348

 347

 345

 343

 342

 338

 334

 334

 333

 331

 331

 331

 331

 331

 331

TOTAL 16,833

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
§ 75.200 How applications for new grants and cooperative agreements are selected for funding; standards for use of cooperative agreements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70322 , Aug. 29, 2024.
( a ) *Direct grant programs.* The Department administers two kinds of direct grant programs. A direct grant program is either a discretionary grant or a formula grant program.
( b ) *Discretionary grant programs.* ( 1 ) A discretionary grant program is one that permits the Secretary to use discretionary judgment in selecting applications for funding.

Cross Reference:
See § 75.219 Exceptions to the procedures under § 75.217.
( 2 ) The Secretary uses selection criteria to evaluate the applications submitted for new grants under a discretionary grant program.
( 3 ) To evaluate the applications for new grants under the program the Secretary may use: ( i ) Selection criteria established under § 75.209.
( ii ) Selection criteria in program-specific regulations.
( iii ) Selection criteria established under § 75.210.
( iv ) Any combination of criteria from paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(3)(iii) of this section.
( 4 ) The Secretary may award a cooperative agreement instead of a grant if the Secretary determines that substantial involvement between the Department and the recipient is necessary to carry out a collaborative project.
( 5 ) The Secretary uses the selection procedures in this subpart to select recipients of cooperative agreements.
( c ) *Formula grant programs.* ( 1 ) A formula grant program is one that entitles certain applicants to receive grants if they meet the requirements of the program. Applicants do not compete with each other for the funds, and each grant is either for a set amount or for an amount determined under a formula.
( 2 ) The Secretary applies the program statute and regulations to fund projects under a formula grant program.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 27803, July 24, 1987; 57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992; 60 FR 63873, Dec. 12, 1995; 62 FR 10401, Mar. 6, 1997]
§ 81.43 Review by the Secretary. ( a ) ( 1 ) The Secretary's review of an initial decision is based on the record of the case, the initial decision, and any proper submissions of the parties or other participants in the case.
( 2 ) During the Secretary's review of the initial decision there shall not be any *ex parte* contact between the Secretary and individuals representing the Department or the recipient.
( b ) The ALJ's findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.
( c ) The Secretary may affirm, modify, set aside, or remand the ALJ's initial decision. ( 1 ) If the Secretary modifies, sets aside, or remands an initial decision, in whole or in part, the Secretary's decision includes a statement of reasons that supports the Secretary's decision.
( 2 ) ( i ) The Secretary may remand the case to the ALJ with instructions to make additional findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both, based on the evidence of record. The Secretary may also remand the case to the ALJ for further briefing or for clarification or revision of the initial decision.
( ii ) If a case is remanded, the ALJ shall make new or modified findings of fact or conclusions of law or otherwise modify the initial decision in accordance with the Secretary's remand order.
( iii ) A party may appeal a modified decision of the ALJ under the provisions of §§ 81.42 through 81.45. However, upon that review, the ALJ's new or modified findings, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.
( 3 ) The Secretary, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the ALJ to take further evidence, and the ALJ may make new or modified findings of fact and may modify the initial decision based on that new evidence. These new or modified findings of fact are likewise conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 557(b); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1234(f)(1), 1234a(d), and 3474(a))
[58 FR 43474, Aug. 16, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 46494, Sept. 6, 1995]
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

 197

 191

 192

 195

 197

 192

 190

 191

 192

 192

 190

 188

 178

 178

 170

 166

 159

 160

 157

 156

 157

 160

 160

 164

 170

 170

 168

 170

 174

 169

 183

 182

 184

 184

 182

 181

 181

 180

 181

 179

 175

 171

 172

 167

 161

 156

 154

 151

 151

 149

 149

 150

 151

 153

 156

 160

 161

 161

 163

 162

 189

 187

 188

 188

 188

 186

 185

 185

 186

 186

 183

 179

 174

 173

 166

 161

 156

 155

 154

 153

 153

 154

 154

 158

 161

 163

 164

 165

 167

 165

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 2, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,382

 2,415

 2,440

 2,456

 2,476

 2,492

 2,511

 2,530

 2,550

 2,567

 2,581

 2,589

 2,585

 2,577

 2,554

 2,528

 2,496

 2,463

 2,429

 2,396

 2,364

 2,333

 2,301

 2,273

 2,251

 2,235

 2,225

 2,217

 2,218

 2,222

 170

 173

 174

 175

 177

 178

 179

 181

 182

 183

 184

 185

 185

 184

 182

 181

 178

 176

 174

 171

 169

 167

 164

 162

 161

 160

 159

 158

 158

 159

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### § 75.236 Effect of the grant.

The grant obligates both the Federal Government and the grantee to the requirements that apply to the grant.

(Authority: [20 U.S.C. 1221e-3](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/1221e-3) and [3474](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/3474))

Cross Reference:

See [2 CFR 200.308](/on/2024-08-29/title-2/section-200.308), Revision of budget and program plans.