alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 686.24 Transfer student: attendance at more than one institution during an award year. ( a ) If a student who receives a TEACH Grant at one institution subsequently enrolls at a second institution, the student may receive a grant at the second institution only if— ( 1 ) The student submits a SAR with an official EFC to the second institution; or
( 2 ) The second institution obtains an ISIR with an official EFC.
( b ) The second institution must calculate the student's award in accordance with § 686.22 or 686.25.
( c ) The second institution may pay a TEACH Grant only for that period in which a student is enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible program at that institution.
( d ) The student's TEACH Grant for each payment period is calculated according to the procedures in § 686.22 or 686.25 unless the remaining balance of the Scheduled Award at the second institution is the balance of the student's last Scheduled Award and is less than the amount the student would normally receive for that payment period.
( e ) A transfer student must repay any amount received in an award year that exceeds the amount which he or she was eligible to receive.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, *et seq.*)
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Frederick B. Ryan et al., as Executors of Julia C. Ryan, Deceased. Adeline Irwin et al. Frederick B. Ryan et al.

*720Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
§ 19.690 Change in location. If there is a change in the location of the alcohol fuel plant or of the area included within the plant premises, the proprietor must: ( a ) File an application to amend the permit on form TTB F 5110.74, Application and Permit for an Alcohol Fuel Producer Under 26 U.S.C. 5181, or a letterhead application to amend the permit;
( b ) File a new bond on form TTB F 5110.56 or a consent of surety on form TTB F 5000.18 if a bond is required; and
( c ) Not begin operations at the new location prior to approval of the amended application and issuance of the amended permit.
(26 U.S.C. 5172, 5181)
#### § 19.19 Discontinuance of storage facilities.

If TTB determines that a proprietor's bonded storage facility for spirits is unsafe or unfit for use, or causes excessive waste or loss of spirits, TTB can require that the proprietor discontinue using the facility. Further, TTB can require the transfer of the spirits stored in the facility to another storage facility. The transfer will take place at such time and under such supervision as TTB may require, and will be at the expense of the owner or warehouseman of the spirits. If the owner or warehouseman fails to transfer the spirits within the prescribed time or to pay the expense of the transfer, as ascertained and determined by the appropriate TTB officer, the spirits may be seized and sold. TTB will first apply the proceeds of such sale to the payment of the taxes due on the spirits and then to the cost and expense of the sale and removal, and the remaining balance, if any, will be paid over to the owner or warehouseman.

(26 U.S.C. 5236)
#### Herbert J. David, Respondent, v. Gus Goldstein et al., Appellants.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ.; Lewis, J., not voting.
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

 5,097

 5,917

 6,485

 5,303

 5,512

 6,738

 4,479

 4,025

 3,293

 3,841

 4,300

 4,082

 4,885

 5,405

 6,620

 6,230

 8,639

 7,939

 4,556

 3,594

 3,430

 3,889

 3,976

 3,807

 3,516

 2,341

 4,941

 4,690

 5,696

 5,282

 1,186

 822

 868

 850

 450

 846

 800

 598

 449

 423

 549

 578

 729

 801

 528

 735

 767

 1,061

 608

 361

 387

 410

 426

 451

 507

 548

 562

 687

 626

 581

 3,000

 3,283

 3,426

 3,029

 2,795

 3,928

 2,907

 2,473

 1,880

 1,872

 1,976

 2,006

 2,409

 2,448

 2,697

 2,769

 4,046

 3,950

 2,541

 2,010

 1,887

 1,894

 1,695

 1,504

 1,542

 1,046

 1,985

 2,130

 2,557

 2,756

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 8, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 43,322

 43,249

 43,081

 42,415

 41,686

 41,907

 41,327

 40,752

 40,676

 39,943

 39,112

 38,239

 37,781

 37,432

 37,129

 36,615

 37,235

 38,156

 37,902

 35,984

 34,964

 34,385

 34,200

 33,832

 33,398

 32,438

 32,014

 31,696

 31,556

 31,543

 3,094

 3,089

 3,077

 3,030

 2,978

 2,993

 2,952

 2,911

 2,905

 2,853

 2,794

 2,731

 2,699

 2,674

 2,652

 2,615

 2,660

 2,725

 2,707

 2,570

 2,497

 2,456

 2,443

 2,417

 2,386

 2,317

 2,287

 2,264

 2,254

 2,253

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 99



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in her capacity as an officer of First Indiana
Corporation (First Indiana), that, to her knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Annual Report of First Indiana on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Indiana.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: |  | March 13, 2003
|------ |  | --------------



/s/    MARNI
MCKINNEYMarni McKinneyVice Chairman andChief Executive
Officer
CVC Water Delivery Records

Preliminary Data Total water to be moved in Aug/Sep - 7200 plus 3550 (10,750) ac-ft . Total water to be pumped at Banks - 11,082 ac-ft (10,750 plus 3% for losses)

Subject to Change Red indicates Scheduled Data Green indicates Projected Delivery Data

Blue indicates Actual Data Deliveries on Behalf of CVC Contractors (45% Allocation)

Aug-10

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

Article 55 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Tracy 

AF

CVC Water 

Pumped @ 

O'Neill 

AF

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Dos 

Amigos for 

Delivery 

AF

Loss 

Between 

Banks and 

O'Neill 

Based on 

Actual 

Deliveries 

(should be 

3%)

Exchange from 

DWR to USBR 

in O'Neill

1,775 AF Lower 

Tule transfer to 

Westland (via 

State side)

 1,775 AF Pixley 

transfer to 

Westlands (via 

State side)

Kern-Tulare 

7200 ac-ft to 

Rosedale

8/1/20108/2/20108/3/20108/4/20108/5/20108/6/20108/7/20108/8/20108/9/2010

8/10/20108/11/20108/12/20108/13/20108/14/20108/15/20108/16/20108/17/20108/18/20108/19/20108/20/20108/21/20108/22/20108/23/20108/24/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF

8/25/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF8/26/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF8/27/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF8/28/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF8/29/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF8/30/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 222 AF 222 AF 298 AF8/31/2010 764 AF 739 AF 14 AF 221 AF 221 AF 298 AF

Aug 2010 Total 6,112 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 5,912 AF 112 AF 0 AF 1,775 AF 1,775 AF 2,384 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

Notes:

V:\~WATER\~SMITH\Cross Valley Canal\03_2010 to 02_2011\Master 03_2010 to 02_2011 CVC Deliveries.xls
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Financial Officer

I, Philippe Rainville, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report of VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp.;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. 	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) 	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) 	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: May 13, 2005 | /s/ Philippe Rainville     
|------------------ | ---------------------------
|                   | Philippe Rainville         
|                   | Principal Financial Officer

---
§ 76.653 Needs, number of students, and types of services. A subgrantee shall determine the following matters on a basis comparable to that used by the subgrantee in providing for participation of public school students: ( a ) The needs of students enrolled in private schools.
( b ) The number of those students who will participate in a project.
( c ) The benefits that the subgrantee will provide under the program to those students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
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

DAY ELEV

 1,197.20

 1,197.30

 1,197.38

 1,197.47

 1,197.56

 1,197.64

 1,197.76

 1,197.95

 1,198.08

 1,198.19

 1,198.22

 1,198.20

 1,198.19

 1,198.19

 1,196.16

 1,198.16

 1,198.17

 1,198.16

 1,198.16

 1,198.16

 1,198.16

 1,198.16

 1,198.15

 1,198.15

 1,198.15

 1,198.14

 1,198.14

 1,198.14

 1,198.14

 46.51

 46.68

 46.82

 46.97

 47.13

 47.27

 47.48

 47.81

 48.04

 48.23

 48.28

 48.25

 48.23

 48.23

 44.74

 48.18

 48.19

 48.18

 48.18

 48.18

 48.18

 48.18

 48.16

 48.16

 48.16

 48.14

 48.14

 48.14

 48.14

STORAGE

+0.19

+0.17

+0.14

+0.16

+0.16

+0.14

+0.21

+0.33

+0.23

+0.19

+0.05

-0.04

-0.02

+0.00

-3.49

+3.44

+0.02

-0.02

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

-0.02

+0.00

+0.00

-0.02

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

CHANGE

99

90

79

84

83

74

109

168

119

104

45

-9

-1

6

-1,756

1,741

15

-4

93

5

2

5

-2

11

11

-3

5

6

8

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3

 14

 6

 3

 3

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

OUTLET

 3

 2

 8

 4

 3

 3

 3

 0

 3

 3

 4

 2

 4

 2

 4

 6

 5

 4

 3

 4

 1

 4

 6

 10

 10

 5

 4

 5

 7

C.F.S.

 .05

 .03

 .14

 .08

 .06

 .06

 .05

 .00

 .05

 .05

 .07

 .04

 .07

 .03

 .08

 .11

 .09

 .07

 .06

 .07

 .02

 .07

 .10

 .18

 .18

 .08

 .07

 .08

 .12

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .40

 .52

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .27

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2012 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 03/20/2012

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +1.82 1,187 29 29 122 2.16 1.22

ACRE-FEET +1,820 2,354 58 58 242

COMMENTS:

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

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 58

OUTLET

TOTAL

 58

 116

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.22

JULY 1, 2011 7.18

 46.32
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any purposes.

      In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, 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:

         1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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




March 30, 2004                                    /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
--------------                                    --------------------
     Date                                         Joseph M. Jayson
                                                  Individual General Partner and
                                                  Principal Financial Officer
§ 19.167 Increase of bond coverage. ( a ) *When required.* If the penal sum of a bond is less than the maximum amount specified by § 19.166, and liabilities increase to the point where they exceed the bond coverage, the proprietor must increase the amount of the bond to cover the increased liability. The proprietor must increase the bond coverage either by replacing the existing bond with a new, larger bond that covers the entire liability, or by supplementing the existing bond with a separate strengthening bond in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Strengthening bonds.* A strengthening bond is a second bond with the same surety as on the original bond which covers the increased liability. A strengthening bond must show both its execution date and its effective date. TTB will not accept a strengthening bond if it contains any term or condition that is a release, or could be interpreted as a release, from liability under any former bond, or that limits the liability of any bond to less than its full penal sum.
(26 U.S.C. 5173)
(No. 6622

#### Hazel-Wilson Hotel Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 14, 1972.*

Samuel A. Schwartz, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*14Berlin, C.J.
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 81288          Scale: 200,000          Edition: 1          Edition Date: 01-APR-44          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1944/18**Notice Listing-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
### [§§4084, 4085. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §218(a)(3), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2027]

Section 4084, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 850, related to delivery of prisoner with copy of commitment.

Section 4085, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 850, related to authority, expense, etc., respecting transfer of Federal prisoner for State offense.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of such repeal, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3551 of this title.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 87000 / September 18, 2019

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-16757

In the Matter of

Citigroup Alternative Investments 

LLC and Citigroup Global Markets 

Inc.,

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER DIRECTING 

DISBURSEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION 

FUND

On September 11, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Plan of 

Distribution and Opportunity for Comment (“Notice”),1pursuant to Rule 1103 of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans (“Commission’s Rules”).2 The 

Notice advised interested persons that they could obtain a copy of the Proposed Plan of 

Distribution (“Proposed Plan”) from the Commission’s public website or by submitting a written 

request to Nancy Chase Burton, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F 

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-5876. The Notice also advised that all persons desiring to 

comment on the Proposed Plan could submit their comments, in writing, within 30 days of the 

Notice. The Commission received three comments on the Proposed Plan during the comment 

period. On April 27, 2018, after thorough review and substantial consideration, the Commission 

issued an order approving the Proposed Plan, and issued the Plan of Distribution (the “Plan”).3

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 81570 (Sept. 11, 2017).

2

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1103.

3

 Order Approving Plan as Modified, Exchange Act Rel. No. 83123 (Apr. 27, 2018).
2

The Plan provides for the distribution of the Distribution Fund, plus accumulated interest, 

less taxes (the “Net Distribution Fund”), to the harmed investors according to the methodology 

set forth in the Plan. 

The Plan provides for the distribution of the Net Distribution Fund when the Fund 

Administrator submits a validated payment file with payee information in a Commissionapproved format, along with a reasonable assurances letter as to its completeness and accuracy. 

The Fund Administrator has submitted a payment file to Commission staff with a reasonable 

assurances letter as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained therein. 

Commission staff has reviewed the payment file and requests, pursuant to Rule 1101(b)(6) of the 

Commission’s Rules, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(b)(6), that the Commission authorize the 

disbursement of $184,864,153 from the Distribution Fund to the Distribution Fund's escrow 

account at The Huntington National Bank for distribution by the Fund Administrator to Eligible 

Investor in accordance with the Plan.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Commission staff shall transfer $184,864,153

from the Distribution Fund to the Distribution Fund’s escrow account at The Huntington 

National Bank, and the Fund Administrator shall distribute such monies to Eligible Investors as 

provided for in the Plan.

By the Commission.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
#### Laura A. Porter, as Administratrix, etc., Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, Defendant.

Motion denied, without costs. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
Petrocelli2hearing. 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

2 Petrocelli 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