alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1112. Manslaughter

(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:

Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both;

Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 756; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, §320102, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2109, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §604(b)(13), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, §207, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2538.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§453, 454 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§274, 275, 35 Stat. 1143).

Section consolidates punishment provisions of sections 453 and 454 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

The special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provision was added in view of definitive section 7 this title.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–177 substituted "15 years" for "ten years" in second par. and "8 years" for "six years" in last par.

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–294 repealed Pub. L. 103–322, §320102(2). See 1994 Amendment note below.

1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000" in last par.

Pub. L. 103–322, §320102(3), substituted "six years" for "three years" in last par.

Pub. L. 103–322, §320102(2), which provided for amendment identical to Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), above, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(13).

Pub. L. 103–322, §320102(1)(B), which directed the amendment of subsec. (b) by inserting ", or both" after "years", was executed by inserting the material after "years" in second par., which was the first place the word appeared in text, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 103–322, §320102(1)(A), inserted "fined under this title or" after "shall be" in second par.

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.
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

 215

 219

 230

 247

 331

 335

 0

 0

 0

 0

 208

 200

 193

 183

 181

 179

 178

 177

 176

 185

 192

 235

 202

 206

 203

 192

 194

 191

 186

 193

 199

 194

 200

 207

 212

 218

 224

 0

 0

 0

 0

 179

 170

 168

 165

 159

 160

 158

 159

 159

 167

 174

 179

 177

 178

 176

 174

 172

 172

 171

 173

 176

 202

 207

 216

 223

 236

 252

 0

 0

 0

 0

 191

 187

 178

 170

 168

 168

 166

 163

 166

 173

 182

 188

 188

 191

 190

 183

 180

 178

 177

 180

 184

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 10, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 3,386

 3,307

 3,255

 3,217

 3,193

 3,188

 2,930

 2,669

 2,413

 2,182

 2,156

 2,138

 2,105

 2,062

 2,028

 1,989

 1,939

 1,879

 1,809

 1,730

 1,912

 2,100

 2,288

 2,479

 2,478

 2,474

 2,476

 2,484

 2,493

 2,505

 2,523

 242

 236

 233

 230

 228

 228

 209

 191

 172

 156

 154

 153

 150

 147

 145

 142

 139

 134

 129

 124

 137

 150

 163

 177

 177

 177

 177

 177

 178

 179

 180

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on June 22, 2016, the cause upon appeal to revise 

or reverse your judgment between

Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda, Appellant

V.

Susser Petroleum Operating Company, LLC, Appellee

No. 04-16-00146-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2016-CI-01790

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

On April 20, 2016, the court issued its opinion and judgment in this 

appeal. Although a motion for en banc rehearing is pending, the panel, on its 

own motion, withdraws its opinion and judgment of April 20, 2016 and 

substitutes this opinion and order instead. 

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss 

is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION. 

We ORDER that appellants, Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha 

Kalakonda, pay all costs, if any, incurred as a result of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of 

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on August 31, 2016.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-16-00146-CV

Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda

v.

Susser Petroleum Operating Company, LLC

(NO. 2016-CI-01790 IN 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

COPIES

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51 

FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

INDIGENT

FILING

MOTION FEE

$10.00

$15.00

$30.00

$110.00

$138.00

$10.00

$50.00

$30.00

$25.00

$100.00

$10.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

N/A

HARI KALAKONDA

HARI KALAKONDA

PLAINTIFFS

HARI P KALAKONDA

AUDREY VICKNAIR

HARI KALAKONDA

HARI KALAKONDA

HARI KALAKONDA

HARI KALAKONDA

HARI KALAKONDA

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Fourth District of Texas, this August 31, 2016.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Petrocelli2 hearing. He further argues that the evidence was inadmissible 

because it was more prejudicial than probative. We disagree. 

First, arguably the evidence did not refer to prior bad acts 

because the entries appear to reflect a future plan rather than a written 

recording suggesting that appellant took any action toward shooting a 

police officer and killing Danny and Rodger or accomplished those deeds. 

As such, no Petrocelli hearing was required before admitting the note. 

Second, even assuming a Petrocelli hearing should have been 

conducted, the error is not reversible when the record sufficiently 

establishes that the evidence was admissible under Tinch v. State, 113 

Nev. 1170, 1176, 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997) (setting forth test for 

admissibility of prior bad act evidence—"(1) the incident is relevant to the 

crime charged; (2) the act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and 

(3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by 

the danger of unfair prejudice"), as amended by Bigpond v. State, 128 Nev. 

_7 -7 270 P.3d 1244, 1249-50 (2012), "or the trial result would have 

been the same had the trial court excluded the evidence." Diomampo v. 

State, 124 Nev. 414, 430, 185 P.3d 1031, 1041 (2008). Here, we conclude 

that the evidence met the Tinch test because it was relevant to the offense 

and proven by clear and convincing evidence based on the victim's 

identification of the handwriting in the note as belonging to appellant. We 

reject appellant's contention that the challenged evidence was more 

prejudicial than probative. Although the evidence was prejudicial, it was 

not unfairly prejudicial because it was probative of the perpetrator's 

2Petrocelli v. State, 101 Nev. 46, 692 P.2d 503 (1985). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

identity and possible motive for committing the offense. See NRS 

48.035(1); NRS 48.045(2). 

Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that 

they lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

,J 

Cherry 

cc: Chief Judge, Tenth Judicial District 

Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge 

Churchill County Public Defender 

Troy Curtis Jordan 

Churchill County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Churchill County Clerk 

3
### part 6—general provisions
Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that each officer and/or director
of iShopper.com  whose signature  appears below constitutes and appoints Douglas
S. Hackett, as his true and lawful  attorney-in-fact  and agent, with full power
of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities,  to sign in the name of or on behalf of the undersigned,
as a director and/or officer of said corporation, the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of iShopper.com for the year ended December 31, 1999, and any and all amendments
to such Annual Report, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection  therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission
granting unto said  attorney-in-fact  and agent,  full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing  requisite  and necessary to be done in
connection therewith,  as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could
do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and
agent, or his substitute or substitutes,  may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have  executed  this  Power of
Attorney this 13th day of March, 2000.

   /s/
---------------------------      Chairman of the Board        ------------------
GEORGE DENNEY                    Board of Directors

   /s/
---------------------------      President, Chief Executive   ------------------
DOUGLAS S. HACKETT               Officer, and Director

   /s/
---------------------------      Chief Financial Officer and  ------------------
WILLIAM E. CHIPMAN, SR.          Director

   /s/
---------------------------      Executive Vice President     ------------------
ADAM MAHER                       and Director
### §§1356a to 1356j. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections were omitted. See sections 1356k and 1356l of this title.

Section 1356a, Pub. L. 89–23, §2, May 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 112, authorized the President, for a period not to exceed October 1, 1968, to carry out the provisions of the International Coffee Agreement, 1962.

Section 1356b, Pub. L. 89–23, §3, May 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 112, defined "coffee" for section 1356a of this title.

Section 1356c, Pub. L. 89–23, §4, May 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 112, authorized delegation of Presidential powers and duties and required protection of consumer interests under sections 1356a to 1356e of this title.

Section 1356d, Pub. L. 89–23, §5, May 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 113, required the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the International Coffee Agreement, 1962.

Section 1356e, Pub. L. 89–23, §6, May 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 113, authorized appropriations for sections 1356a to 1356e of this title and limited contributions for administration of the International Coffee Agreement, 1962.

Section 1356f, Pub. L. 90–634, title III, §302, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1348; Pub. L. 91–694, §1, Jan. 12, 1971, 84 Stat. 2077; Pub. L. 92–262, Mar. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 113, authorized the President, for a period not to exceed October 1, 1973, to carry out the provisions of the International Coffee Agreement, 1968.

Section 1356g, Pub. L. 90–634, title III, §303, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1348, defined "coffee" for section 1356f of this title.

Section 1356h, Pub. L. 90–634, title III, §304, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1348, authorized delegation of Presidential powers and duties and required protection of consumer interests under sections 1356f to 1356j of this title and provided for remedial action under the International Coffee Agreement, 1968.

Section 1356i, Pub. L. 90–634, title III, §305, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1349, required the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the International Coffee Agreement, 1968.

Section 1356j, Pub. L. 90–634, title III, §306, Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1349, provided procedures to prevent discrimination against vessels registered under laws of the United States in shipping coffee to the United States.
(No. 00148

#### In Re Application of Emily L. Gallo.

*Opinion filed May 4, 1978.*

Chapman and Cutler, by Charles Hughes, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Vincent J. Biskupic, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

This claim arising out of the death of a fireman allegedly killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 48, Sec. 281 *et seq.,*1975

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General; a written statement of *399the decedent’s supervising officer; and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted, the Court finds that:

1. The Claimant, Emily L. Gallo, is the widow of the decedent and is the beneficiary who was designated by him as stated in the application for benefits.

2. The decedent, Anthony M. Gallo, was a fireman employed by the Schaumburg Fire Department and engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, on December 16, 1977. He was 37 years of age.

3. On said date, at approximately 7:38 a.m., firefighter Gallo, age 37, responded, during regularly assigned duty, with his unit to a fire alarm. As the fire truck upon which he was riding skidded to avoid a collision with a private automobile, the fire truck went over a curb, into a drainage ditch, overturned, and pinned Gallo beneath it. Firefighter Gallo was pronounced dead at 9:05 a.m. the same date, and the certificate of death presented recited the immediate cause of death as “massive internal injuries,” due to or as a consequence of “fire engine mishap.”

4. Firefighter Gallo was killed in the line of duty as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act.

5. The proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act and the claim is therefore compensable thereunder.

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000.00 be awarded to Emily L. Gallo, as widow and designated beneficiary of the deceased fireman, Anthony M. Gallo.
§ 75.104 Applicants must meet procedural rules. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70320 , Aug. 29, 2024.
( a ) The Secretary may make a grant only to an eligible party that submits an application.
( b ) If a maximum award amount is established in a notice published in the Federal Register, the Secretary may reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[61 FR 8455, Mar. 4, 1996]
#### Charles J. Estep, appellee, v. Samuel Schlesinger, et al., Impleaded with Isaac A. Wood et al., appellants.

Filed February 23, 1899.

No. 8732.

1. Review: Exceptions. An interlocutory order to which no exception has been taken cannot be reviewed.

2. Appeal. In a cause brought to this court by appeal the judgment will not be reversed if it responds to, and is warranted by, the pleadings and proof.

Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Powell, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Silas Gobi,*for appellants.

*James II. McIntosh, contra.*

Sullivan, J.

This action was brought in the district court of Douglas county to foreclose three real estate mortgages. Isaac Wood and Eliza Wood were the fee owners of an undivided one-half of the mortgaged property. The other half was owned by two other defendants. The Woods answered denying plaintiff’s ownership of the mortgages and questioning the amount claimed to be due thereon. They also filed a cross-petition containing the usual allegations in actions for partition, and asked that the several shares and interests of the parties as therein alleged be confirmed and that referees be appointed to make allotment accordingly. To this pleading the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sustained. It is now urged that the ruling on the demurrer was erroneous and that the judgment of foreclosure should, therefore, be reversed.

We cannot consider the correctness of the decision, for the reason that no exception ivas taken. The order *63being interlocutory, in the absence of an exception, is not reviewable. *(Abbott v. Barton,*47 Neb. 822; *Yager v. Lemp,*39 Neb. 93; *Weich v. Calhoun,*22 Neb. 166.) Besides, this being an appeal, the only question for our determination is whether the judgment rendered is the one which ought to have been rendered on the pleadings and evidence. There is nothing whatever in the record before us that would warrant a decree for partition. The judgment is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1272
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (52)
<INVENTORY>                                       2540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4239
<PP&E>                                            6232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3985)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2533
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                        4672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7251
<SALES>                                           8392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8392
<CGS>                                             5232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    514
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
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

 7,423

 6,213

 7,704

 7,034

 7,946

 8,231

 7,050

 6,702

 6,321

 6,752

 6,112

 6,937

 8,184

 9,439

 9,036

 8,843

 8,522

 8,213

 7,915

 7,440

 6,965

 6,218

 6,058

 6,088

 6,287

 6,731

 8,300

 9,034

 9,164

 9,119

 1,063

 930

 785

 1,387

 993

 1,285

 1,031

 949

 1,761

 932

 1,143

 981

 1,167

 1,337

 1,227

 1,264

 1,325

 1,545

 1,223

 1,117

 1,586

 883

 1,183

 1,195

 1,347

 1,545

 1,778

 1,880

 1,124

 1,345

 3,902

 3,616

 4,102

 3,937

 4,260

 4,564

 4,147

 3,900

 3,874

 3,524

 3,268

 3,668

 4,376

 5,196

 5,221

 4,905

 4,734

 4,830

 4,718

 4,419

 4,552

 3,808

 3,567

 3,406

 3,548

 3,747

 4,460

 4,516

 4,921

 4,862

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 42,187

 42,631

 43,297

 44,070

 45,579

 47,070

 48,257

 49,344

 50,442

 51,399

 52,070

 52,938

 54,424

 56,334

 57,653

 58,942

 59,574

 60,467

 60,925

 60,780

 61,185

 61,093

 60,786

 60,668

 60,948

 61,027

 61,111

 60,431

 60,131

 60,088

 3,013

 3,045

 3,093

 3,148

 3,256

 3,362

 3,447

 3,525

 3,603

 3,671

 3,719

 3,781

 3,887

 4,024

 4,118

 4,210

 4,255

 4,319

 4,352

 4,341

 4,370

 4,364

 4,342

 4,333

 4,353

 4,359

 4,365

 4,317

 4,295

 4,292

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
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

 159

 178

 182

 195

 216

 231

 231

 238

 255

 224

 205

 181

 184

 193

 189

 270

 319

 418

 939

 950

 1,296

 1,174

 607

 494

 390

 654

 430

 751

 543

 677

 744

 153

 155

 153

 153

 154

 155

 157

 158

 159

 160

 157

 159

 159

 163

 160

 156

 157

 162

 166

 167

 184

 175

 175

 179

 183

 179

 172

 173

 168

 169

 174

 156

 159

 162

 165

 172

 175

 177

 176

 186

 179

 173

 171

 172

 172

 167

 170

 184

 228

 313

 337

 344

 329

 249

 264

 253

 246

 220

 227

 232

 251

 272

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,013

 2,030

 2,054

 2,083

 2,120

 2,159

 2,198

 2,233

 2,275

 2,307

 2,333

 2,355

 2,376

 2,395

 2,406

 2,417

 2,439

 2,502

 2,643

 2,805

 2,972

 3,125

 3,188

 3,273

 3,353

 3,428

 3,476

 3,531

 3,596

 3,677

 3,765

 144

 145

 147

 149

 151

 154

 157

 160

 163

 165

 167

 168

 170

 171

 172

 173

 174

 179

 189

 200

 212

 223

 228

 234

 240

 245

 248

 252

 257

 263

 269

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER