alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


    

      CAMPUSU,
        INC.

      803
        SYCOLIN ROAD, SUITE 204

      LEESBURG,
        VA 20175

      


      


      November
        1, 2007

      


      By
        Fax (781) 634-8352

      


      Mr.
        Jeff
        Dyment

      Managing
        Director

      Drax
        Holdings, L.P.

      404
        Citation Point 

      Naples,
        FL 34104

      


      Dear
        Mr.
        Dyment:

    

     

     

    In
      consideration of Drax Holdings, L.P. (“Drax”)
      executing, on the date hereof, a Lock-Up Agreement, in the form attached hereto
      as Exhibit
      A,
      with
      respect to 275,328 shares of common stock (the “Common
      Stock”)
      of
      CampusU, Inc. (the “Company”)
      owned
      by Drax as of the date hereof, the Company hereby agrees to purchase 250,000
      shares of the Common Stock owned by Drax at a price of $4.50 per share (the
      “Purchase
      Price”)
      by no
      later than the date on which the Company consummates the initial public offering
      of its Common Stock (the “IPO”)
      using
      a portion of the proceeds of such IPO. The Purchase Price is based on the number
      of shares of Common Stock owned by Drax prior to giving effect to the Company’s
      proposed one-for-4.1 reverse stock split which, for the sake of clarity, is
      2,153,845 shares of Common Stock.

    


    If
      you
      are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and returning
      one copy of this letter and the attached Lock-Up Agreement, which will
      constitute our agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof. Facsimile
      signatures shall be deemed originals for all purposes hereunder. 

     

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              Very
                truly yours,

              CampusU,
                Inc.

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ Robert
              S.
              Frank
	 	
              
Robert
              S. Frank
President and Chief Executive
              Officer
	 	 


       

      Agreed
        and Accepted:

      


      DRAX
        HOLDINGS, L.P.

      


      


      By: /s/ Jeff
        Dyment                                     
 

      Jeff
        Dyment, Managing Director 

      


      Date:
        November 1, 2007
#### Adam Frank, Respondent, v. Rowland & Shafto, Incorporated, and Charles F. H. Johnson, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 10, 2009 *

Decided December 23, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 1967

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

RAY ANTHONY PUGH,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 01

‐ 40021

‐ GPM

G. Patrick Murphy,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Ray Anthony Pugh appeals from an order reducing his prison sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Pugh wanted a bigger reduction, but the district court concluded that it

was not authorized to go any lower. We affirm the court’s decision. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 1967 Page 2

Pugh pleaded guilty in 2001 to possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. See

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). With a total offense level of 36 and criminal history category of III, his

guidelines imprisonment range was 235 to 292 months. The district court imposed a term of

235 months, and we affirmed the judgment on direct appeal, United States v. Pugh

, 39 F.

App’x 392 (7th Cir. 2002).

In 2008, Pugh moved under § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on a

retroactive amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. That amendment, if applied to Pugh, would

lower his base offense level by two levels and reduce his imprisonment range to 188 to 235

months. Pugh, who filed his motion pro se, asked the district court to reduce his sentence

even below 188 months in light of other factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court appointed

the public defender’s office to represent Pugh, and his new lawyer filed a separate motion

under § 3582(c)(2) asking for a reduction to 188 months. Counsel filed an additional

motion, however, asking the court to independently consider Pugh’s pro se motion.

The district court granted counsel’s motion and reduced Pugh’s term of

imprisonment to 188 months. But the court denied Pugh’s pro se motion and explained

that, in Pugh’s case, a sentence below the amended guidelines range was not authorized by

§ 3582(c)(2).

The sentencing guideline that implements § 3582(c)(2) does not permit a reduction

below the amended imprisonment range unless the original term of imprisonment was itself

below

‐ range, and Pugh’s was not. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2). Pugh argues, though, that

United States v. Booker

, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which rendered the sentencing guidelines

advisory, should also be read to eliminate any restriction on the application of § 3582(c)(2).

As he acknowledges, however, we held in United States v. Cunningham

, 554 F.3d 703, 707

‐ 08

(7th Cir. 2009), that Booker does not make § 3582(c)(2) or § 1B1.10(b)(2) advisory. Pugh’s

brief adds nothing new since our Cunningham decision.

AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 370

 299

 270

 283

 289

 323

 337

 375

 432

 427

 467

 412

 457

 455

 451

 393

 366

 426

 413

 430

 431

 499

 424

 401

 386

 418

 404

 404

 346

 373

 336

 197

 198

 197

 198

 199

 189

 193

 196

 198

 190

 189

 162

 186

 187

 186

 186

 179

 182

 183

 185

 179

 184

 177

 176

 174

 177

 185

 183

 179

 186

 181

 281

 248

 234

 238

 248

 238

 231

 247

 288

 258

 276

 217

 254

 246

 243

 226

 223

 234

 233

 221

 220

 245

 226

 226

 219

 229

 235

 236

 231

 234

 235

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:August 3, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 190

 169

 161

 163

 169

 163

 159

 169

 194

 175

 187

 150

 173

 168

 166

 156

 154

 161

 160

 153

 152

 167

 156

 156

 151

 158

 161

 162

 159

 161

 161

TOTAL 7,420

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 530 

To provide that certain actions by the Federal Communications Commission 

shall have no force or effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2019 

Ms. ESHOO (for herself and Ms. SPEIER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide that certain actions by the Federal 

Communications Commission shall have no force or effect. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accelerating 

5 Broadband Development by Empowering Local Commu6 nities Act of 2019’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF STATE AND LOCAL 

8 GOVERNMENTS. 

9 Actions by the Federal Communications Commission 

10 in ‘‘Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:32 Jan 26, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H530.IH H530

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 530 IH

1 ployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Invest2 ment’’ (83 Fed. Reg. 51867) and the Federal Communica3 tions Commission’s Declaratory Ruling in ‘‘Third Report 

4 and Order and Declaratory Ruling’’ (FCC 18–111) shall 

5 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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

 589

 571

 587

 578

 563

 562

 580

 601

 578

 569

 561

 554

 552

 553

 557

 534

 557

 532

 519

 499

 446

 422

 417

 421

 435

 454

 466

 466

 457

 450

 457

 399

 395

 393

 399

 389

 372

 367

 377

 439

 382

 391

 397

 411

 431

 446

 419

 437

 412

 416

 417

 404

 394

 384

 366

 354

 340

 315

 293

 271

 258

 243

 463

 448

 456

 455

 450

 452

 456

 485

 483

 476

 479

 474

 477

 483

 493

 478

 489

 469

 460

 447

 428

 412

 399

 389

 391

 388

 376

 359

 338

 318

 308

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:January 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 302

 293

 298

 297

 294

 295

 298

 316

 314

 310

 312

 309

 311

 314

 321

 311

 318

 306

 300

 292

 281

 271

 263

 256

 258

 256

 248

 238

 225

 213

 206

TOTAL 13,479

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
(No. 77-CC-1642

#### Earl Robinson, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed April 14, 1978.*

Per Curiam.

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 his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held *250that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
### §2521. Injunction against illegal interception

Whenever it shall appear that any person is engaged or is about to engage in any act which constitutes or will constitute a felony violation of this chapter, the Attorney General may initiate a civil action in a district court of the United States to enjoin such violation. The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination of such an action, and may, at any time before final determination, enter such a restraining order or prohibition, or take such other action, as is warranted to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons for whose protection the action is brought. A proceeding under this section is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that, if an indictment has been returned against the respondent, discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

(Added Pub. L. 99–508, title I, §110(a), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1859.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in text, are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in text, are set out in the Appendix to this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1986, and, in case of conduct pursuant to court order or extension, applicable only with respect to court orders and extensions made after such date, with special rule for State authorizations of interceptions, see section 111 of Pub. L. 99–508, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendment note under section 2510 of this title.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4910 

To prohibit the use of eminent domain for the construction or expansion 

of a natural gas pipe line through land conserved by certain land trusts 

and local governments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 29, 2019 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire (for herself, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. 

MALINOWSKI, Mr. QUIGLEY, and Mr. HUFFMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of eminent domain for the construction 

or expansion of a natural gas pipe line through land 

conserved by certain land trusts and local governments, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Our Con5 served Lands Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. 

7 Section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 717f(h)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4910 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) 

2 When’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(2) Beginning on January 1, 2022, notwithstanding 

6 paragraph (1), a holder of a certificate of public conven7 ience and necessity may not exercise the right of eminent 

8 domain to acquire land or other property necessary to con9 struct, operate, or maintain a pipe line for the transpor10 tation of natural gas, or any station or equipment nec11 essary to the proper operation of such pipe line, any part 

12 of which will be located on land that is— 

13 ‘‘(A) subject to a conservation easement or 

14 other conservation-related restriction by an organiza15 tion described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 

16 Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 

17 under section 501(a) of such Code; 

18 ‘‘(B) owned by or deeded to an organization de19 scribed in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of con20 servation; 

21 ‘‘(C) subject to a conservation easement or 

22 other conservation-related restriction by a munici23 pality, county, or other division of local government; 

24 or 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4910 IH

1 ‘‘(D) owned by or deeded to a municipality, 

2 county, or other division or subdivision of local gov3 ernment for the purpose of conservation.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-1006.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NARCOTIC DRUGS 

Cooperating Nation Information 

Exchange System 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and PERU 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Lima August 16, 2005 

 with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 PERU 

 Narcotic Drugs: Cooperating Nation 

 Information Exchange System 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Lima August 16, 2005; 

 Entered into force October 6, 2005. 

 With annex.
<PAGE>   1


                                 June 25, 1996



Mr. Kenneth Guerrini
Gander Mountain, Inc.
P. O. Box 128
Wilmot, WI  53192

     Re: Gander Mountain, Inc.

Dear Mr. Guerrini:

     We are writing as agent (the "Agent") for Bank One, Milwaukee, National
Association, Firstar Bank Milwaukee, N.A., LaSalle National Bank, NBD Bank,
formerly known as NBD Bank, N.A. and Harris Trust and Savings Bank
(collectively, the "Banks") in connection with the Third Amended and Restated
Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement dated as of November 22, 1994 and
amended by First Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Revolving Credit and
Term Loan Agreement dated August 18, 1995, Eleventh Amendment to Third Amended
and Restated Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement dated May 17, 1996,
Twelfth Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Revolving Credit and Term Loan
Agreement dated June 14, 1996 and Letter Agreement dated June 21, 1996
(collectively, the "Loan Agreement") among Agent, the Banks and Gander
Mountain, Inc. (the "Borrower").

     The Borrower has requested that the Banks waive the June 25 date for
entering into a contract for sale of Borrower's and its Subsidiaries' assets as
contained in section 1.87 of the Loan Agreement.  In connection with such
request, the Borrower has informed the Agent that Borrower does not have need
for any loan advances that would cause the aggregate principal amount
outstanding to exceed $29,600,000 hereafter.

     On behalf of the Banks, the Agent hereby agrees, effective upon the
Agent's receipt of a copy of this letter signed by Borrower in the space
provided below, that the requirement that Borrower and its Subsidiaries enter
into a contract for sale of substantially all of the assets of Borrower and its
Subsidiaries satisfactory to Borrower and Banks on or before June 25, 1996 is
hereby waived.  By signing below, Borrower agrees that the total principal
amount outstanding

<PAGE>   2


under the Loan Agreement shall not exceed $29,600,000 on or after the date
hereof, and that Borrower shall comply with all other terms and conditions of
the Loan Agreement.


                                     Very truly yours,




                                     Errol D.  Barnett
                                     Vice President


Acknowledged and Agreed to this ___ day of June, 1996.

Gander Mountain, Inc.




By:  ____________________________
     Kenneth Guerrini
### SUBCHAPTER III—RELIEF FROM IMPORTS
12/2/2021

Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total 

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS 

Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,504 1,669 3,173 2,984 

2-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2,064 1,666 3,729 4,093 

3-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 955 1,660 2,616 1,895 

4-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,723 1,880 3,603 3,418 

5-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2,597 1,878 4,476 5,152 

6-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,832 1,881 3,712 3,633 

7-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,914 1,888 3,802 3,796 

8-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,938 1,884 3,822 3,845 

9-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3,609 1,879 5,488 7,158 

10-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,936 1,882 3,818 3,840 

11-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,577 1,880 4,457 5,112 

12-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,032 1,883 3,915 4,031 

13-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 2,605 1,881 4,487 5,168 

14-Feb-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,930 1,876 3,806 3,828 

15-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 2,577 1,872 4,449 5,112 

16-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 3,155 2,599 5,753 6,257 

17-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0N 3,891 2,597 6,488 7,717 

18-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 3,588 2,577 6,164 7,116 

19-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 1,936 3,329 5,265 3,840 

20-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 2,667 3,319 5,986 5,290 

21-Feb-21 0 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 2,605 3,300 5,905 5,168 

22-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0N 2,328 2,549 4,877 4,618 

23-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0N 1,281 2,553 3,834 2,541 

24-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0N 945 2,567 3,512 1,875 25-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 4 0 4 1 0N 0N 1,711 1,633 3,344 3,393 

26-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 0 0 0 1 0N 0N 1,934 975 2,910 3,837 

27-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0N 1,404 975 2,378 2,784 

28-Feb-21 0N 0N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 4Y 745 972 1,717 1,477 

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 10 0 10 XXXX 0 4 59,984 57,502 117,486 118,978 

Official data is posted on CDFW's webpage.

CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT, SPLITTAIL and LONGFIN REPORT

FEBRUARY 2021

DATE

Banks Tracy Combined Banks
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

DAY

 526.15

 526.99

 528.03

 528.68

 529.37

 530.14

 530.76

 531.27

 531.83

 532.47

 532.99

 533.45

 533.78

 533.90

 533.90

 533.60

 533.58

 533.40

 533.27

 533.06

 532.92

 532.95

 532.97

 533.63

 533.96

 534.19

 534.43

 534.86

 1,817,698

 1,827,984

 1,840,746

 1,848,739

 1,857,236

 1,866,734

 1,874,394

 1,880,704

 1,887,640

 1,895,578

 1,902,037

 1,907,756

 1,911,863

 1,913,357

 1,913,357

 1,909,622

 1,909,373

 1,907,134

 1,905,517

 1,902,907

 1,901,167

 1,901,539

 1,901,788

 1,909,996

 1,914,104

 1,916,969

 1,919,961

 1,925,324

 3,440

 3,470

 8,739

 3,203

 3,463

 2,158

 2,235

 0

 1,708

 6,188

 1,034

 1,112

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3,496

 0

 1,763

 1,608

 2,906

 1,448

 2,499

 3,251

 0

 2,151

 2,136

 2,122

 0

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL April 3, 2002

DAILY OPERATIONS

FEBRUARY 2002 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 118,258 23,380 10,666 2,212

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 10,632

 10,286

 12,762

 7,993

 8,497

 9,498

 7,660

 6,310

 6,936

 7,938

 6,459

 5,719

 4,107

 1,494

 0

-3,735

-249

-2,239

-1,617

-2,610

-1,740

 372

 249

 8,208

 4,108

 2,865

 2,992

 5,363

 306

 307

 309

 322

 299

 304

 315

 300

 279

 306

 331

 364

 334

 357

 350

 370

 353

 352

 332

 346

 378

 380

 442

 443

 434

 463

 687

 903

3,078

3,127

8,408

2,853

3,135

1,829

1,895

-318

1,393

5,836

682

716

-366

-367

-193

-3,826

-306

-2,191

-1,822

-3,266

-1,869

-2,901

-3,722

-493

-2,657

-2,645

-2,852

-946

ELEV STORAGE

 36,750

 897,806

 900,933

 909,341

 912,194

 915,329

 917,158

 919,053

 918,735

 920,128

 925,964

 926,646

 927,362

 926,996

 926,629

 926,436

 922,610

 922,304

 920,113

 918,291

 915,025

 913,156

 910,255

 906,533

 906,040

 903,383

 900,738

 897,886

 896,940

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 894,728

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0