alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

August-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-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 24 24 48 128 5,069 4,338 9,407 10,054 8,605 18,659 

2-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 10 24 34 119 7,924 4,322 12,246 15,717 8,573 24,290 3-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 103 7,136 4,336 11,472 14,154 8,600 22,754 4-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 68 7,158 4,353 11,511 14,198 8,635 22,833 5-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 7,158 4,376 11,534 14,198 8,679 22,877 6-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 7,158 4,394 11,552 14,198 8,715 22,913 7-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 7,155 4,394 11,549 14,192 8,715 22,907 8-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 7,155 4,393 11,548 14,192 8,714 22,906 9-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7,224 4,483 11,708 14,329 8,893 23,222 

10-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 7,198 4,451 11,650 14,278 8,829 23,107 11-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 23 7,122 4,431 11,552 14,126 8,788 22,914 12-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 7,078 4,437 11,514 14,039 8,800 22,839 13-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 7,408 4,416 11,824 14,694 8,759 23,453 14-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6,840 4,381 11,221 13,567 8,689 22,256 

15-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 9 7,415 4,431 11,846 14,707 8,789 23,496 

16-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 7 6,929 4,434 11,363 13,744 8,794 22,538 17-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7,084 4,354 11,438 14,052 8,636 22,688 18-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6,846 4,399 11,246 13,580 8,726 22,306 19-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 5 7,024 4,418 11,443 13,933 8,764 22,697 20-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6,853 4,373 11,225 13,592 8,673 22,265 21-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6,963 4,461 11,425 13,812 8,849 22,661 22-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 6 6,895 4,443 11,339 13,677 8,813 22,490 23-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 7 7,608 4,498 12,105 15,090 8,921 24,011 24-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7,011 4,478 11,489 13,906 8,883 22,789 25-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7,039 4,416 11,455 13,961 8,760 22,721 26-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7,065 4,415 11,480 14,013 8,757 22,770 27-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7,050 4,378 11,428 13,984 8,683 22,667 28-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7,003 4,422 11,425 13,890 8,772 22,662 29-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 6 7,076 4,421 11,497 14,035 8,769 22,804 

30-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7,070 4,392 11,462 14,024 8,711 22,735 31-Aug-05 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 6 7,064 4,414 11,478 14,011 8,755 22,766 

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 43 228 271 XXXX 218,778 136,652 355,430 433,947 271,049 704,996 XX

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

D

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined S
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Barry D. QuartBarry D. Quart, Pharm.D.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ John W. BeckJohn W. Beck, C.P.A.Senior Vice President, Finance
and
Operations and Chief Financial Officer  Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ardea Biosciences, Inc. and will be retained by Ardea Biosciences, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## 2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-7-2010 

# Robin M cIn t yr e v

. C ity of W i lmin gt on P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-2962

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ro b in M cI n t yr e v

. C it y of W

i lmin g t on " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2092. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2092
**AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION ESTABLISHING THE SERIES B CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK OF COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP, INC.**
 
 
 
 Pursuant to Section O (a) of the Certificate of Designation, College Partnership, Inc. (College Partnership) and the holders of a majority of the current issued and outstanding shares hereby agree to amend the Certificate of Designation, as follows:
 
 
 **P.**
**Redemption**. On or after the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Issue Date, each share of Series B Preferred stock may be redeemed by College Partnership at any time and from time to time in exchange for the then principal amount remaining plus any and all accrued but unpaid dividends then existing if the trading price of College Partnership common stock is trading at less than $1.00 (adjusted for stock dividends, combinations or splits). 
 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and the holders of a majority of the current issued and outstanding shares have executed this Amendment to the Certificate of Designation.
 
 **COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP**    **PREFERRED STOCK**
 
 **John J. Grace**      **William H. Waldrop**
 
 By:/s/ *John J Grace* By: /s/ *William H. Waldrop*
 
 Title: Chairman      Share Owned: 1,760,000 (80%)
 
 **J. Wade Mezey**
 
 By: */s/ J. Wade Mezey*
 
 Share Owned: 222,200 (10.1%)
§ 8.1 What is the scope and applicability of this part? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part establishes the procedures to be followed when the Department or any employee of the Department receives a demand for— ( 1 ) Testimony by an employee concerning— ( i ) Records contained in the files of the Department;
( ii ) Information relating to records contained in the files of the Department; or
( iii ) Information or records acquired or produced by the employee in the course of his or her official duties or because of the employee's official status; or
( 2 ) The production or disclosure of any information or records referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) This part does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person against the Department.
( c ) This part does not apply to— ( 1 ) Any proceeding in which the United States is a party before an adjudicative authority;
( 2 ) A demand for testimony or records made by either House of Congress or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee of Congress; or
( 3 ) An appearance by an employee in his or her private capacity in a legal proceeding in which the employee's testimony does not relate to the mission or functions of the Department.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 3474)
[57 FR 34646, Aug. 5, 1992, as amended at 73 FR 27748, May 14, 2008]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-728 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and HONDURAS 

Signed July 28, 2006 

 
 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.” 
HONDURAS 

Defense: Communications 

Memorandum of understanding signed 

 July 28, 2006; 

 Entered into force July 28, 2006.
|   | EXHIBIT 32.2 |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

|   |
|--------|

|   | CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERREQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| I, Dean E. Sukowatey, Acting Chief Accounting Officer of ICrystal,                Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as                adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,                that                the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March                31,                2005, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. I further                certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of the Company. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |
|--------|

| Dated: March 21, 2007. | /s/ DEAN E. SUKOWATEY |   |
|------------------------|-----------------------|--------|

|   | Dean E. SukowateyActing Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reink Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

December 16, 2003
                                        /s/ William Smith
                                        ------------------
                                        William Smith
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion sh o uld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30171

Summary Calendar

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PATRICK PENDERGRAFT, ET AL.,

Defendants,

KOURTNEY MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(98-CV-545-E)

September 17, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kourtney Martin appeals the district court’s granting of

summary judgment to Travelers Property Casualty Corporation

(“Travelers”) and the district court’s de nial of her motion for

reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment. Since her appeal

of the summary judgment order was not timely, this court lacks

jurisdiction t o hear an appeal of the underlying judgment.

Furthermore, although this court has jurisdiction over her appeal

of the denial of the motion to reconsider, we fi nd that thedistrict court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm.

In order for this court to have jurisdiction over the

appellant’s appeal, the appeal must be timely filed. S ee United

States v. Cooper

, 135 F.3d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1998). Since Ms.

Martin’s motion to reconsider was filed more than ten days after

the order granting summary judgment was entered, her Notice of

Appeal was not timely to stay the 30 day period for notice of

appeal of that order under Rule 4(a). S ee F ED

. R. A PP

. P

.

4(a )(1)(A), 4(a)(4), and F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 6(a). As a result, this

court has jurisdiction to review only the motion for

reconsideration. A post-judgment motion to reconsider is a Rule

60(b) motion if the motion is filed more than ten days after the

underlying judgment is entered. S ee Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat

Rentals, Inc.

, 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986). Ms. Martin’s

motion is, therefore, a Rule 60(b) motion, and the standard of

review is abuse of discretion. S ee Halicki v. Louisiana Casino

Cruises, Inc.

, 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied

, 119

S. Ct. 1143 (1999); Bohlin Co. v. Bunning Co.

, 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th

Cir. 1993)(unde r the abuse of discretion standard, the court’s

decision need only be reasonable).

Having reviewed the record, this cou rt finds that the

district court reasonably found that the policy exclusion applied

since: (1) assuming that the appellant is correct in arguing that

Louisiana law applies, the rental agreement was a val id contract

even though a minor was a party to the contract ( s ee L A

. C IV

. C ODE

A NN

. art. 1919 (West 1999)), and (2) a jet ski is a “watercraft” as

that termis used in the insurance policy. Thus, the districtcourt did not abuse its discretion, and this court AFFIRMS.
(No. 78-CC-1485

#### William A. Swanson, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*804
      *Order filed November 2, 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 allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisioned, 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 that 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.
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 22, 2011 | By: /s/ Cery B. Perle                                                                                                                |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Cery B. PerlePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal executive officer, principal financialand accounting officer) |
388 P.2d 398

#### James C. LATTIN, Petitioner, v. The STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 47 HC.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 27, 1964.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, NOBLE and MOISE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the request for free process be and the same is hereby granted, and the petition for writ of injunction be and the same is hereby denied for the present.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HEZEKIAH JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 9 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7472** 

DEREK J. BROWN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 0 :12

- cv - 0 2988

- TMC )

Submitted : January 22, 2014 Decided: January 31, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and r emand ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Derek J. Brown , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derek J. Brown appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . On appeal, Brown contends that he did not receive the magistrate jud ge’s report and recommendation , p roviding documentary support for this assertion from the postal director at his correctional institution. A party who fails to object in writing to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate judge’s determinations and is barred from contesting these determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985). The waiver is a result of procedural default and does not affect jurisdiction. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). W hen a litigant is proceeding pro se, he must be given fair notice of the consequences of failing to object before a procedural defaul t will apply

. Wright , 766 F.2d at 846. From the record presented, w e cannot fairly determine whether Brown received a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation , or was notified of his right to file timely objections and the consequences o f failing to do so. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the district court and3 remand so that the district court can make that determination. Should the district court find Brown credible in this regard, it can provide him with the report and requisit e information and an opportunity to file objections. If , on the other hand, the court finds that Brown did receive the report in its initial mailing , it can re enter its original order, with any necessary modifications. We deny as moot Brown’s motion to ab ey. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
### §590z–5. Repealed. Aug. 17, 1954, ch. 751, §2, 68 Stat. 736

Section, act Aug. 11, 1939, ch. 717, §7, as added Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 861, 54 Stat. 1124; amended June 10, 1949, ch. 195, 63 Stat. 171, related to limitations on expenditures under former sections 590r to 590x of this title.
§ 690.64 Determining the award year for a Federal Pell Grant payment period that occurs in two award years. ( a ) If a student enrolls in a payment period that is scheduled to occur in two award years— ( 1 ) The entire payment period must be considered to occur within one award year;
( 2 ) The institution must determine for each Federal Pell Grant recipient the award year in which the payment period will be placed;
( 3 ) If an institution places the payment period in the first award year, it must pay a student with funds from the first award year; and
( 4 ) If an institution places the payment period in the second award year, it must pay a student with funds from the second award year.
( b ) An institution may not make a payment which will result in the student receiving more than one and one-half of his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant for an award year.
[77 FR 25901, May 2, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 59626, Oct. 28, 2021]
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

 554

 568

 575

 552

 532

 490

 603

 567

 631

 637

 677

 662

 658

 729

 676

 713

 616

 598

 556

 551

 582

 634

 646

 658

 669

 692

 716

 650

 659

 624

 339

 346

 346

 357

 372

 368

 398

 394

 387

 393

 388

 382

 382

 377

 384

 399

 403

 411

 421

 430

 434

 427

 440

 445

 431

 435

 444

 441

 448

 444

 400

 408

 423

 435

 436

 421

 455

 456

 464

 465

 455

 451

 450

 476

 462

 486

 490

 476

 473

 482

 488

 501

 514

 508

 517

 519

 523

 512

 514

 505

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 13, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 263

 268

 277

 285

 285

 276

 297

 298

 303

 303

 297

 295

 294

 310

 302

 316

 319

 310

 308

 314

 318

 326

 334

 330

 336

 337

 339

 332

 334

 328

TOTAL 14,165

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
§ 75.235 The notification of grant award. ( a ) To make a grant, the Secretary issues a notification of grant award and sends it to the grantee.
( b ) The notification of grant award sets the amount of the grant award and establishes other specific conditions, if any.
(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 57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992]