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

 449.33

 449.67

 449.56

 449.54

 450.14

 451.27

 453.00

 454.43

 456.81

 458.43

 459.88

 461.11

 462.54

 464.00

 465.40

 467.61

 468.66

 469.94

 471.30

 472.66

 474.08

 475.06

 477.14

 478.15

 480.17

 481.33

 482.57

 484.25

 485.95

 487.89

 489.21

 965,633

 968,999

 967,910

 967,712

 973,658

 984,889

 1,002,166

 1,016,523

 1,040,566

 1,057,038

 1,071,853

 1,084,473

 1,099,205

 1,114,314

 1,128,864

 1,151,957

 1,162,981

 1,176,466

 1,190,848

 1,205,286

 1,220,421

 1,230,900

 1,253,271

 1,264,176

 1,286,081

 1,298,716

 1,312,268

 1,330,704

 1,349,446

 1,370,941

 1,385,632

 1,694

 3,050

 0

 0

 4,740

 4,671

 7,255

 4,619

 12,265

 7,446

 7,404

 4,538

 4,479

 7,303

 6,919

 11,726

 4,369

 4,392

 6,774

 6,858

 6,663

 1,455

 11,452

 939

 11,288

 4,186

 4,191

 4,210

 6,526

 11,030

 3,818

 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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL January 29, 2002

DAILY OPERATIONS

DECEMBER 2001 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 421,185 0 9,233 158,035

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 1,186

 3,366

-1,089

-198

 5,946

 11,231

 17,277

 14,357

 24,043

 16,472

 14,815

 12,620

 14,732

 15,109

 14,550

 23,093

 11,024

 13,485

 14,382

 14,438

 15,135

 10,479

 22,371

 10,905

 21,905

 12,635

 13,552

 18,436

 18,742

 21,495

 14,691

 283

 295

 295

 342

 281

 253

 284

 272

 280

 290

 280

 287

 316

 309

 329

 314

 348

 263

 269

 431

 315

 320

 323

 318

 278

 301

 338

 311

 301

 291

 116

1,303

3,011

-242

-277

3,903

4,122

6,577

4,192

11,478

6,636

6,721

3,958

3,861

6,535

6,134

10,860

3,737

3,623

6,100

6,057

6,212

877

10,531

376

10,362

4,583

3,601

3,627

5,997

10,214

3,366

ELEV STORAGE

 176,260

 552,908

 555,919

 555,677

 555,400

 559,303

 563,425

 570,002

 574,194

 585,672

 592,308

 599,029

 602,987

 606,848

 613,383

 619,517

 630,377

 634,114

 637,737

 643,837

 649,894

 656,106

 656,983

 667,514

 667,890

 678,252

 682,835

 686,436

 690,063

 696,060

 706,274

 709,640

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 551,605

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

0
(No. 74-CC-129

#### John P. Ledlie, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Office of the Commissioner of Banks and Trust Companies, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 13, 1973.*

John P. Ledlie, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-11003 Summary Calendar

__________________ HENRY HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:94-CV-111-X
- - - - - - - - - - May 20, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Henry Hargrove appeals the district court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision not to reopen his 1989 claim for disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and Hargrove's brief and AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for the same reasons set forth by the district court. Hargrove v. Shalala , 7:94-CV-111-X (N.D. Tex.; Sept. 7, 1995). Insofar as Hargrove argues that the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(3)(A), mandates a hearing prior to a decisionNo. 95-11003 -2- to reopen, thus distinguishing his case from the holding of Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99 (1977), we do not consider this argument as it is raised for the first time in Hargrove's reply brief. See Stephens v. C.I.T. Group/Equip. Fin., Inc. , 955 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1992). 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

DAY

 494.50

 495.40

 496.10

 496.65

 497.27

 497.67

 498.06

 498.60

 499.38

 499.97

 500.08

 500.01

 499.94

 500.36

 500.90

 501.70

 502.00

 501.98

 501.94

 501.88

 501.50

 501.69

 501.72

 501.35

 501.37

 501.33

 501.08

 500.09

 499.18

 498.59

 1,445,033

 1,455,223

 1,463,165

 1,469,415

 1,476,472

 1,481,031

 1,485,480

 1,491,649

 1,500,574

 1,507,337

 1,508,599

 1,507,796

 1,506,993

 1,511,813

 1,518,018

 1,527,227

 1,530,685

 1,530,454

 1,529,993

 1,529,301

 1,524,923

 1,527,111

 1,527,457

 1,523,196

 1,523,426

 1,522,965

 1,520,088

 1,508,714

 1,498,284

 1,491,534

 2,783

 3,453

 3,250

 5,142

 8,300

 3,447

 2,079

 2,073

 4,122

 2,035

 0

 0

 0

 3,440

 2,736

 2,019

 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

 0

 0

 0

 3,767

 0

 1,328

 4,027

 0

 0

 0

 0

 4,096

 1,943

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL March 17, 2020

DAILY OPERATIONS

JUNE 2019 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 50,457 15,161 10,919 -29,139

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 3,956

 10,190

 7,942

 6,250

 7,057

 4,559

 4,449

 6,169

 8,925

 6,763

 1,262

-803

-803

 4,820

 6,205

 9,209

 3,458

-231

-461

-692

-4,378

 2,188

 346

-4,261

 230

-461

-2,877

-11,374

-10,430

-6,750

 369

 348

 222

 280

 404

 377

 377

 409

 394

 384

 368

 403

 395

 387

 389

 354

 383

 369

 380

 361

 369

 376

 347

 391

 375

 370

 384

 406

 422

 126

1,946

2,650

2,906

4,576

7,449

3,005

1,351

1,163

3,388

1,313

-2,759

-2,780

-2,079

2,350

1,968

1,308

-511

-6,407

-7,743

-8,010

-7,217

-6,930

-1,420

-4,468

-2,227

-411

-2,384

-2,341

-4,576

-2,249

ELEV STORAGE

 44,879

 744,085

 746,735

 749,641

 754,217

 761,666

 764,671

 766,022

 767,185

 770,573

 771,886

 769,127

 766,347

 764,268

 766,618

 768,586

 769,894

 769,383

 762,976

 755,233

 747,223

 740,006

 733,076

 731,656

 727,188

 724,961

 724,550

 722,166

 719,825

 715,249

 713,000

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 742,139

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-2,500

-2,500

-1,500

0

0

0

0

-6,100

-7,327

-7,500

-3,000

-6,000

0

0

-1,500

0

-2,000

-2,000

0

0

-41,927
#### § 19.341 General.

This subpart covers processing operations at distilled spirits plants. A proprietor authorized to perform processing operations must conduct processing operations in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. Subpart V of this part sets forth recordkeeping requirements that apply to processing operations. Also, the provisions of subpart O of this part apply if a proprietor denatures spirits or manufactures articles on bonded premises as part of processing operations under this subpart.

(26 U.S.C. 5201)
EXHIBIT 32.3



CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*



In
connection with the Annual Report of California Pizza Kitchen, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Susan M. Collyns, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.



April 4, 2005



By:

/s/    SUSAN M.
COLLYNSSusan M. Collyns Chief Financial Officer




|* | This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Steven M. Skow, President and C.E.O., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Integrity Bancshares, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 

 
 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.November 7, 2005              /s/  Steven M. Skow   Steven M. Skow, President and C.E.O.   (Principal Executive Officer)
§ 19.27 Application for and use of alternate method or procedure. ( a ) *Application.* If a proprietor wishes to use an alternate method or procedure as described in § 19.26, the proprietor must submit a written letterhead application to the appropriate TTB officer for approval. The application must identify the method or procedure specified in the regulation, must describe the proposed alternate method or procedure in detail, and must explain why the alternate method or procedure is needed.
( b ) *Approval and use.* The proprietor may not use an alternate method or procedure until the appropriate TTB officer has in writing approved the proprietor's application. During the period that the proprietor is authorized to use the alternate method or procedure, the proprietor must comply with any conditions imposed on its use by TTB. TTB may withdraw the approval to use the alternate method or procedure if TTB finds that the revenue is jeopardized, that the alternate method or procedure hinders effective administration of the laws or regulations, that the proprietor has violated any of the conditions imposed by TTB, or that the circumstances that gave rise to the need for the alternate method or procedure no longer exist.
( c ) *Retention.* The proprietor must retain each alternate method or procedure approval as part of the proprietor's records and must make the approval available for examination by TTB officers upon request.
(26 U.S.C. 5552, 5556)
(No. 73-CC-87

#### Matheson Scientific Division of Will Ross, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 25, 1973.*

Matheson Scientific Division of Will Ross, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
§ 19.391 Mixing denatured spirits. ( a ) *Spirits of the same formula.* If a proprietor has two or more different batches of denatured spirits produced under the same formula, the proprietor may mix them on bonded premises.
( b ) *Spirits of different formulas.* A proprietor may mix denatured spirits produced under different formulas on bonded premises for immediate redistillation at the same plant or at another plant subject to the provisions of §§ 19.314, 19.315, and 19.316.
(26 U.S.C. 5241, 5242)
(No. 6672

#### Joseph J. Duffy Co., A Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 5, 1972.*

W. L. Lamey, Attorney for Claimant.

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

Perlin, C.J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,714
<PP&E>                                          30,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          149,832
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,370
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   388,922
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (194,094)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (194,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (194,094)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Bert Wiley, Respondent, v. The Solvay Process Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Foote, J., who dissented upon the ground that the evidence shows that larger nails might have served the same purpose as a punch, and there was no proof that larger nails were not available as a part of the plant; Merrell, J., not sitting.
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

 1,664

 1,293

 1,487

 1,174

 748

 708

 542

 718

 743

 764

 723

 955

 820

 667

 655

 679

 827

 526

 507

 515

 459

 288

 272

 420

 494

 670

 625

 590

 702

 680

 774

 181

 195

 223

 223

 226

 222

 214

 192

 180

 177

 175

 180

 186

 170

 178

 183

 180

 174

 180

 181

 175

 166

 158

 165

 164

 166

 153

 168

 181

 189

 190

 417

 420

 417

 360

 377

 324

 286

 263

 244

 255

 236

 283

 313

 272

 274

 307

 333

 250

 256

 257

 238

 211

 190

 194

 206

 212

 221

 226

 262

 276

 297

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 4,714

 4,715

 4,793

 4,805

 4,815

 4,772

 4,737

 4,696

 4,689

 4,695

 4,682

 4,673

 4,644

 4,467

 4,324

 4,211

 4,127

 4,017

 3,896

 3,829

 3,781

 3,729

 3,675

 3,614

 3,584

 3,513

 3,421

 3,375

 3,363

 3,332

 3,296

 337

 337

 342

 343

 344

 341

 338

 335

 335

 335

 334

 334

 332

 319

 309

 301

 295

 287

 278

 274

 270

 266

 263

 258

 256

 251

 244

 241

 240

 238

 235

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 694.9 Under what conditions may the Secretary approve a request from a Partnership that has received a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion of the matching requirement? ( a ) After a grant is awarded, the Secretary may approve a Partnership grantee's written request for a waiver of up to— ( 1 ) 50 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if the grantee demonstrates that— ( i ) The matching contributions described for those two years in the grantee's approved application are no longer available; and
( ii ) The grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential contributions for replacing the matching funds.
( 2 ) 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if the grantee demonstrates that matching contributions from the original application are no longer available due to an uncontrollable event, such as a natural disaster, that has a devastating economic effect on members of the Partnership and the community in which the project would operate.
( b ) In determining whether the grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential contributions for replacing matching funds, the Secretary considers the grantee's documentation of key factors such as the following and their direct impact on the grantee: ( 1 ) A reduction of revenues from State government, County government, or the local educational agency (LEA).
( 2 ) An increase in local unemployment rates.
( 3 ) Significant reductions in the operating budgets of institutions of higher education that are participating in the grant.
( 4 ) A reduction of business activity in the local area (*e.g.,* large employers have left the local area).
( 5 ) Other data that reflect a significant decrease in resources available to the grantee in the local geographical area served by the grantee.
( c ) If a grantee has received one or more waivers under this section or under § 694.8, the grantee may request an additional waiver of the matching requirement under this section no earlier than 60 days before the expiration of the grantee's existing waiver.
( d ) The Secretary may grant an additional waiver request for up to 50 percent of the matching requirement for a period of up to two years beyond the expiration of any previous waiver.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)
[75 FR 65799, Oct. 26, 2010]
### §2401c. Study by Secretary of Agriculture when International Trade Commission begins investigation

#### (a) In general

Whenever the International Trade Commission (in this part referred to as the "Commission") begins an investigation under section 2252 of this title with respect to an agricultural commodity, the Commission shall immediately notify the Secretary of the investigation. Upon receipt of the notification, the Secretary shall immediately conduct a study of—

(1) the number of agricultural commodity producers producing a like or directly competitive agricultural commodity who have been or are likely to be certified as eligible for adjustment assistance under this part, and

(2) the extent to which the adjustment of such producers to the import competition may be facilitated through the use of existing programs.

#### (b) Report

Not later than 15 days after the day on which the Commission makes its report under section 2252(f) of this title, the Secretary shall submit a report to the President setting forth the findings of the study described in subsection (a). Upon making the report to the President, the Secretary shall also promptly make the report public (with the exception of information which the Secretary determines to be confidential) and shall have a summary of the report published in the Federal Register.

(Pub. L. 93–618, title II, §294, as added Pub. L. 107–210, div. A, title I, §141(a), Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 949.)

#### Termination of Assistance

For termination of assistance under this part after June 30, 2022, see Termination Date note below.

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

#### Termination Date

Except as otherwise provided, technical assistance and financial assistance may not be provided under this part after June 30, 2022, see section 285 of Pub. L. 93–618, as modified by section 406(a)(7) of Pub. L. 114–27, set out as notes preceding section 2271 of this title.
### §2353. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title XXV, §2526, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 893

Section, Pub. L. 93–618, title II, §263, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2034, contained transitional provisions for certain events occurring prior to the effective date of this part.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Aug. 13, 1981, except as otherwise provided with respect to applications for adjustment assistance, see section 2529 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 2343 of this title.
### §2612. Regulations

The Secretary shall prescribe such rules and regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 97–446, title III, §313, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2363.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the 90th day after Jan. 12, 1983, or on any date which the President shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register, with exceptions, see section 315 of Pub. L. 97–446, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-2600

LAUREL CASEY and ASTERIX AND OBELIX, LLC,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

CITY OF NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this court issued October 16, 2002, should be

amended as follows:

On page 27, footnote 10: "As we have explained," should be

replaced with "As the Supreme Court has explained,"