alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 16
Case 17-10562-BFK Doc 12 Filed 03/06/17 Entered 03/07/17 13:44:48 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 16
### §2322. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–210, div. A, title I, §123(b)(2), Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 944

Section, Pub. L. 93–618, title II, §249A, as added Pub. L. 103–182, title V, §503(c), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2151, prohibited assistance relating to a separation pursuant to certifications under both subparts A and D of this part.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2322, Pub. L. 93–618, title II, §250, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2029, provided for judicial review for workers or groups aggrieved by a final determination by the Secretary under section 2273 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–417, title VI, §612, title VII, §701(a), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1746, 1747, effective Nov. 1, 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on or commenced on or after such date. See section 2395 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable with respect to petitions filed under this part on or after the date that is 90 days after Aug. 6, 2002, except with respect to certain workers, see section 123(c) of Pub. L. 107–210, set out as a note under section 2331 of this title.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estop pel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3
. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 10 1997 

## PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. WILLIAM INGRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-8079 (D.C. No. 96-CV-151-B & D.C. No. 91-CR-30 ) (Wyoming)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
William Ingraham was convicted of conspiracy to dis tribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mr. Ingraham f iled a petition for habeas relief under

### -2-

28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending the federal court lack ed subject matter jurisdiction because the federal drug statutes do not constitute a valid exercise of congressional power under the principles enunciated by the Suprem e Court in United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The district court dismissed the petition as frivolous. We have held, post-Lopez , that the regulation of intrastate drug activity under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U .S.C. § 841(a)(1), implicates interstate commerce and is thus a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Wacker , 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); accordUnited States v. Tucker , 90 F.3d 1135, 1140 (6th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases). We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Ingraham’s p etition as frivolous. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
Case 20-33288-KLP Doc 4 Filed 07/30/20 Entered 07/31/20 07:59:07 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case 20-33288-KLP Doc 4 Filed 07/30/20 Entered 07/31/20 07:59:07 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case 20-33288-KLP Doc 4 Filed 07/30/20 Entered 07/31/20 07:59:07 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
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

 129

 132

 142

 148

 151

 156

 165

 187

 201

 190

 192

 187

 191

 201

 207

 204

 197

 206

 233

 231

 226

 227

 235

 248

 235

 241

 221

 212

 201

 209

 212

 79

 86

 90

 96

 97

 106

 117

 127

 134

 133

 127

 129

 131

 134

 138

 136

 137

 134

 137

 136

 137

 138

 140

 142

 139

 142

 141

 145

 146

 155

 148

 99

 110

 117

 117

 117

 127

 131

 143

 153

 147

 143

 140

 147

 161

 169

 167

 163

 162

 170

 165

 161

 164

 160

 160

 171

 175

 169

 166

 168

 172

 175

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:August 1, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 77

 84

 88

 88

 88

 94

 97

 104

 111

 107

 104

 103

 107

 115

 120

 119

 117

 116

 121

 118

 115

 117

 115

 115

 122

 124

 120

 119

 120

 122

 124

TOTAL 4,689

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
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 ELEV

 419.74

 420.65

 422.45

 425.72

 427.85

 429.16

 429.87

 430.32

 430.29

 430.84

 430.55

 428.99

 427.66

 431.67

 434.09

 433.79

 432.73

 431.78

 431.29

 430.94

 430.69

 430.28

 429.78

 429.22

 428.90

 428.37

 428.06

 428.24

 525.9

 533.3

 548.3

 576.1

 594.6

 606.2

 612.5

 616.5

 616.3

 621.2

 618.6

 604.7

 593.0

 628.7

 650.8

 648.0

 638.3

 629.7

 625.2

 622.1

 619.8

 616.2

 611.7

 606.7

 603.9

 599.2

 596.5

 598.0

STORAGE

+3.3

+7.5

+15.0

+27.8

+18.5

+11.6

+6.3

+4.0

-0.3

+4.9

-2.6

-13.9

-11.7

+35.7

+22.1

-2.8

-9.7

-8.6

-4.4

-3.2

-2.2

-3.7

-4.5

-5.0

-2.8

-4.7

-2.7

+1.6

CHANGE

3,745

5,530

9,315

15,536

11,073

7,631

6,802

6,828

6,671

10,146

6,743

5,674

11,377

37,455

30,615

17,814

13,552

10,439

9,301

8,458

8,013

7,395

6,938

6,632

7,609

14,706

19,333

18,678

INFLOW

 1,995

 1,701

 1,711

 1,461

 1,670

 1,738

 3,556

 4,737

 5,492

 5,616

 5,630

 5,585

 5,312

 5,241

 4,991

 5,203

 5,220

 5,195

 5,157

 5,001

 5,004

 5,140

 5,161

 5,230

 5,240

 5,329

 5,246

 5,322

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,249

 1,977

 2,351

 7,036

 11,906

 14,147

 14,426

 13,937

 13,158

 9,498

 6,282

 4,955

 4,073

 4,013

 3,934

 3,834

 3,734

 11,668

 15,402

 12,492

SPILL

 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

OUTLET

 65

 63

 64

 61

 59

 62

 61

 62

 66

 67

 73

 68

 63

 61

 62

 64

 66

 65

 70

 73

 63

 69

 74

 68

 66

 67

 64

 60

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3

 3

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 33

 24

 21

 3

 27

 21

 12

 0

 0

 0

 3

C.F.S.

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .11

 .08

 .07

 .01

 .09

 .07

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

INCHES

 .20

 .81

 .44

 .82

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .09

 .52

 .02

 .00

 .00

 1.48

 .32

 .39

 .12

 .31

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .11

 .00

 .00

 .00

 1.21

 1.36

 .75

 .09

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2019 FOLSOM LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 1, 2019

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. PLANT

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

 RIVER 

TOTALS +75.5 324,009 123,884 160,072 0 1,826 150 .50 9.05

ACRE-FEET +75,500 642,672 245,724 317,503 0 3,622 298

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

 522.5

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 245,724

SPILL

PUMPING PLANT

 317,503

 3,622

TOTAL 566,849

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2018 TO DATE = 20.82

OUTLET 0 9.05

OCT 1, 2018 TO DATE = 20.82
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2173

JI DONG YU, a/k/a Tong Liu,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: April 26, 2018 Decided: May 31, 2018

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cora J. Chang, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ji Dong Yu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of 

removal.*

 We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Yu’s merits 

hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not 

compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Ji Dong Yu (B.I.A. Sept. 25, 2017). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED

 * Yu does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
<PAGE>   1



                                 June 21, 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 and
Twelfth Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Revolving Credit and Term Loan
Agreement dated June 14, 1996 (collectively, the "Loan Agreement") among Agent,
the Banks and Gander Mountain, Inc. (the "Borrower").

     The Borrower has requested that the Banks extend the June 21 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 from June 21, 1996 to June 25,
1996 to allow time for Borrower's Board of Directors to meet to consider one or
more alternatives.  In connection with such request, the Borrower has informed
the Agent that Borrower does not have need for additional loan advances from
and including June 21, 1996 through and including June 25, 1996, other than
miscellaneous expenses and miscellaneous checks outstanding, which, in the
aggregate, will not exceed $310,000 of advances during such period.

     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 21, 1996 is
hereby waived until June 25, 1996.  By signing below, Borrower agrees that loan
advances

<PAGE>   2


from and including June 21, 1996 through and including June 25, 1996 will not
exceed in the aggregate $310,000, and that Borrower shall comply with all other
terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement.


                                     Very truly yours,




                                     Paul G. Karlen
                                     Vice President


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

Gander Mountain, Inc.




By:  ____________________________
     Kenneth Guerrini
No. 30,780.

#### Agricultural Bond and Credit Corporation, *Appellant,*v. Earl J. Koenig, *Appellee.*

(19 P. 2d 1114.)

Opinion filed March 24, 1933.

*W. J. Challis*and *D. C. Hill,*both of Wamego, for the appellant.

*M. A. Bender*and *Minnie M. Banks,*both of Holton, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

This appeal was disposed of in an opinion filed on December 10, 1932. (136 Kan. 514.) Appellant now moves the court to revise the text of that opinion in respect to our comment on the erased and altered date of the assignment of the so-called “negotiable trust receipt,” from which an inference could be drawn that the erasure and alteration were perpetrated fraudulently. It is now shown by apparently credible affidavits that the imperfect erasure and alteration happened otherwise.

The order will therefore be that appellant’s motion is sustained, and the court’s comment on the matter of the erased and altered date will be stricken from the official opinion.
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5470, 5471, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 17.107 Strengthening bonds.

Whenever the amount of a bond on file and in effect becomes insufficient, the principal may give a strengthening bond in a sufficient amount, provided the surety is the same as on the bond already on file and in effect; otherwise a superseding bond covering the entire liability shall be filed. Strengthening bonds, filed to increase the bond liability of the surety, shall not be construed in any sense to be substitute bonds, and the appropriate TTB officer shall not approve a strengthening bond containing any notation which may be interpreted as a release of any former bond or as limiting the amount of either bond to less than its full amount.
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 ELEV

 434.54

 434.35

 434.20

 434.01

 433.89

 433.71

 433.48

 433.30

 433.15

 432.99

 433.04

 432.92

 432.72

 432.56

 432.43

 432.44

 432.37

 432.36

 432.20

 432.00

 431.97

 431.93

 431.87

 431.77

 431.73

 431.58

 431.46

 431.39

 431.28

 431.18

 654.9

 653.2

 651.8

 650.0

 648.9

 647.3

 645.2

 643.5

 642.1

 640.7

 641.1

 640.0

 638.2

 636.7

 635.6

 635.7

 635.0

 634.9

 633.5

 631.7

 631.4

 631.0

 630.5

 629.6

 629.2

 627.9

 626.8

 626.1

 625.1

 624.2

STORAGE

-1.6

-1.8

-1.4

-1.8

-1.1

-1.7

-2.1

-1.7

-1.4

-1.5

+0.5

-1.1

-1.8

-1.5

-1.2

+0.1

-0.6

-0.1

-1.5

-1.8

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.9

-0.4

-1.4

-1.1

-0.6

-1.0

-0.9

CHANGE

1,463

1,287

1,568

1,497

1,335

1,477

1,214

1,165

1,258

1,340

1,961

1,252

1,132

1,194

1,236

1,732

1,664

1,754

1,193

1,095

1,704

1,664

1,506

1,354

1,635

1,435

1,302

1,429

1,451

1,510

INFLOW

 1,918

 1,824

 1,913

 2,021

 1,542

 1,967

 1,945

 1,695

 1,663

 1,795

 1,436

 1,487

 1,738

 1,646

 1,560

 1,400

 1,679

 1,520

 1,659

 1,770

 1,578

 1,580

 1,527

 1,546

 1,536

 1,835

 1,546

 1,458

 1,648

 1,666

POWER

 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

SPILL

 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

OUTLET

 266

 268

 274

 272

 271

 266

 262

 235

 227

 239

 242

 250

 245

 230

 225

 231

 248

 232

 223

 219

 218

 224

 217

 221

 227

 236

 234

 230

 229

 231

PUMPING

 71

 80

 80

 89

 77

 76

 70

 67

 61

 46

 52

 67

 67

 52

 48

 55

 58

 48

 45

 24

 45

 42

 36

 42

 54

 48

 69

 60

 75

 69

C.F.S.

 .23

 .26

 .26

 .29

 .25

 .25

 .23

 .22

 .20

 .15

 .17

 .22

 .22

 .17

 .16

 .18

 .19

 .16

 .15

 .08

 .15

 .14

 .12

 .14

 .18

 .16

 .23

 .20

 .25

 .23

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2010 FOLSOM LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 1, 2010

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. PLANT

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

 RIVER 

TOTALS -32.6 42,807 50,098 0 0 7,192 1,773 5.84 .00

ACRE-FEET -32,600 84,908 99,369 0 0 14,265 3,517

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 99,369

SPILL

PUMPING PLANT

 0

 14,265

TOTAL 113,634

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2010 TO DATE = .00

 656.5

OUTLET 0 .00
### §4673. Funding

The United States shall provide necessary funding to support the work of the Board, including with respect to translation services and personnel support.

(Pub. L. 116–113, title VII, §733, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 87.)
Exhibit 10.1





 


June 4, 2015


 


 


Mr. Mark Bradley, CEO


Green Leaf Farms Holdings, Inc.


Players Network


1771 East Flamingo Road, Suite 201A


Las Vegas, Nevada 89119


 


Dear Mr. Bradley:


Please be advised that Agritek Venture
Holdings, Inc. (“Agritek”) is terminating the Consulting Financial and Licensing Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated March 18, 2015, by and between Agritek Holdings, Inc. and Green Leaf Farms Holdings, Inc. (“Green Leaf”) due
to a breach of contract by Green Leaf.


 


The first paragraph of the Agreement and Paragraph A are
as follows:


 


This Consulting, Financing and Licensing Agreement (“Agreement”)
is executed as of the 18th day of March, 2015 (“Effective Date”) between Agritek Venture Holdings,
Inc. (“CONSULTANT or LICENSOR”), a Delaware corporation with offices at 319 Clematis Street, Ste. 1008,
West Palm Beach, FL33401, and Green Leaf Farms Holdings Inc. (“COMPANY or LICENSEE”), with a mailing
address at 1771 East Flamingo Rd suit 201A Las Vegas Nevada, 89119. The parties enter into the following agreement.


		A.	Whereas the COMPANY has a signed Five (5) year lease agreement with two five (5) year options, to the real property located
at 203 Mayflower, North Las Vegas or such other location as the parties agree (“The Site”); as well CONSULTANT’S
own the right to land in Apex, North Las Vegas zoned for cultivation,



 


Agritek previously requested a copy
of the lease mentioned in Paragraph A, and upon receipt of such lease, Agritek learned that Green Leaf’s lease is for three
years and contains no renewal clauses. Based on this gross misrepresentation, Agritek is hereby terminating the Agreement and is
reserving all of its legal rights it may have against Green Leaf and Players Network.


 


Sincerely,


Agritek Venture Holdings, Inc.


 


 


 


/s/ Justin Braune, CEO
#### Henry Fox v. Samuel Lindeman.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §2705. Impact study by Secretary of Labor

The Secretary of Labor, in consulation 1 with other appropriate Federal agencies, shall undertake a continuing review and analysis of the impact which the implementation of the provisions of this chapter have with respect to United States labor; and shall make an annual written report to Congress on the results of such review and analysis.

(Pub. L. 98–67, title II, §216, Aug. 5, 1983, 97 Stat. 394.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 98–67, Aug. 5, 1983, 97 Stat. 384, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2701 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in this section relating to making an annual written report to Congress, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 123 of House Document No. 103–7.

1 So in original. Probably should be "consultation".
### §23.1 Court of the United States defined

As used in this title, except where otherwise expressly provided 2 the term "court of the United States" includes the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, §320914(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2128.)

1 So in original. No section 22 has been enacted.

2 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
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

 862

 777

 787

 765

 752

 816

 796

 767

 751

 741

 737

 736

 758

 743

 687

 713

 726

 744

 738

 742

 755

 731

 716

 706

 721

 737

 741

 768

 771

 770

 774

 735

 756

 694

 708

 730

 743

 732

 716

 733

 732

 711

 687

 632

 610

 620

 672

 704

 684

 693

 678

 665

 682

 689

 693

 706

 716

 731

 752

 757

 812

 764

 768

 736

 725

 780

 771

 747

 731

 738

 734

 721

 717

 686

 645

 671

 688

 722

 705

 714

 711

 687

 701

 699

 708

 723

 731

 756

 761

 764

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 1, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 518

 488

 491

 471

 464

 498

 492

 478

 468

 472

 470

 462

 459

 440

 415

 431

 441

 462

 452

 457

 455

 441

 449

 448

 454

 463

 468

 483

 486

 488

TOTAL 21,816

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
#### § 675.46 Unallowable costs.

An institution participating in the Work-Colleges program may not use its allocated and reallocated program funds and transferred funds provided under its Federal Perkins Loan or its FWS program to pay costs related to the purchase, construction, or alteration of physical facilities or indirect administrative costs.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2756b)