alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      32.1




Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer of EarthBlock Technologies, Inc. pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 1992 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C.
      63.




I,
      Gregory A. Pitner, the Chief Executive Officer of EarthBlock Technologies,
      Inc.
      hereby certify that to my knowledge, EarthBlock Technologies, Inc. quarterly
      report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and
      the financial statements contained therein fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of EarthBlock
      Technologies, Inc.




Date:
      August 15, 2005


EARTHBLOCK
                TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
              
              BY:/s/
                Gregory A. Pitner
              Gregory
                A. Pitner
              CEO
                and Chairman
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 5862 Filed 12/05/18 Entered 12/05/18 15:24:32 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 5862 Filed 12/05/18 Entered 12/05/18 15:24:32 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
(No. 77-CC-1110

#### Lamar Davis, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 30, 1978.*

Polos, C.J.

*667Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

In particular, Claimant contends that a television set was sent to him while he was an inmate of the Pontiac Correctional Center, and that the Center receipted for the set, but failed to deliver it to him. Claimant has established that the value of that television set was $105.00.

This Court held in *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property as during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions, or when the institution receipts for property.

While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:

> “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.” 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing *Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App.2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.*

In *Chesterfield,*the Court quotes from *Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So2d. 172, at 174, as follows;*

> “An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such *668person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”

The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.

At the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant’s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.

It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $105.00.
### §1003. Demands against the United States

Whoever knowingly and fraudulently demands or endeavors to obtain any share or sum in the public stocks of the United States, or to have any part thereof transferred, assigned, sold, or conveyed, or to have any annuity, dividend, pension, wages, gratuity, or other debt due from the United States, or any part thereof, received, or paid by virtue of any false, forged, or counterfeited power of attorney, authority, or instrument, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but if the sum or value so obtained or attempted to be obtained does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §79 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §34, 35 Stat. 1095).

Words "prize money" were deleted on the ground that they are an anachronism and were so before 1909. (See reviser's note under section 915 of this title.)

Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.

The smaller punishment for an offense involving $100 or less was added. (See reviser's note to sections 641 and 645 of this title.)

The maximum term of "five years" was substituted for "ten years" and "$10,000" was substituted for "$5,000" as being more in harmony with punishment provision of similar sections. (See reviser's note under section 1001 of this title.)

Minor changes in phraseology were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted "$1,000" for "$100".

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000" after "instrument, shall be" and for "fined not more than $1,000" after "he shall be".
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5489 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow importation 

of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date 

the polar bear was determined to be a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself and Mr. SMUCKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport 

hunts in Canada before the date the polar bear was 

determined to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Polar Bear Conserva5 tion and Fairness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5489 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TRO2 PHIES TAKEN IN SPORT HUNTS IN CANADA. 

3 Section 104(c)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protec4 tion Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(D)) is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(D)(i) The Secretary of the Interior shall, ex7 peditiously after the expiration of the applicable 30- 

8 day period under subsection (d)(2), issue a permit 

9 for the importation of any polar bear part (other 

10 than an internal organ) from a polar bear taken in 

11 a sport hunt in Canada to any person— 

12 ‘‘(I) who submits, with the permit applica13 tion, proof that the polar bear was legally har14 vested by the person before February 18, 1997; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(II) who has submitted, in support of a 

17 permit application submitted before May 15, 

18 2008, proof that the polar bear was legally har19 vested by the person before May 15, 2008, from 

20 a polar bear population from which a sport21 hunted trophy could be imported before that 

22 date in accordance with section 18.30(i) of title 

23 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

24 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall issue permits under 

25 clause (i)(I) without regard to subparagraphs (A) 

26 and (C)(ii) of this paragraph, subsection (d)(3), and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5489 IH

1 sections 101 and 102. Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 

2 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the importation of any 

3 polar bear part authorized by a permit issued under 

4 clause (i)(I). This clause shall not apply to polar 

5 bear parts that were imported before June 12, 1997. 

6 ‘‘(iii) The Secretary shall issue permits under 

7 clause (i)(II) without regard to subparagraph (C)(ii) 

8 of this paragraph or subsection (d)(3). Sections 

9 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the 

10 importation of any polar bear part authorized by a 

11 permit issued under clause (i)(II). This clause shall 

12 not apply to polar bear parts that were imported be13 fore the date of enactment of the Polar Bear Con14 servation and Fairness Act.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 431.11

 431.07

 431.14

 431.37

 431.52

 431.62

 431.36

 431.48

 431.44

 431.21

 431.25

 431.32

 431.60

 432.03

 433.45

 434.22

 435.06

 437.26

 438.88

 440.58

 442.38

 444.59

 445.91

 447.28

 449.12

 450.31

 451.50

 452.18

 452.62

 452.80

 453.79

 791,176

 790,807

 791,454

 793,582

 794,971

 795,898

 793,490

 794,601

 794,230

 792,101

 792,472

 793,119

 795,712

 799,700

 812,917

 820,115

 827,992

 848,743

 864,135

 880,387

 897,706

 919,125

 931,999

 945,425

 963,557

 975,345

 987,180

 993,965

 998,363

 1,000,164

 1,010,089

 4,773

 5,109

 5,470

 6,693

 5,956

 3,080

 1,392

 2,391

 2,683

 0

 1,808

 3,461

 3,055

 2,147

 9,356

 4,894

 5,039

 5,437

 4,977

 4,974

 4,631

 6,955

 4,936

 4,937

 10,656

 4,789

 3,720

 1,704

 4,501

 1,694

 1,725

 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, 2003

DAILY OPERATIONS

DECEMBER 2002 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 222,516 0 9,704 122,149

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 3,603

-369

 647

 2,128

 1,389

 927

-2,408

 1,111

-371

-2,129

 371

 647

 2,593

 3,988

 13,217

 7,198

 7,877

 20,751

 15,392

 16,252

 17,319

 21,419

 12,874

 13,426

 18,132

 11,788

 11,835

 6,785

 4,398

 1,801

 9,925

 454

 454

 438

 423

 442

 441

 440

 449

 448

 398

 387

 385

 401

 329

 317

 308

 300

 227

 257

 271

 209

 184

 192

 197

 213

 172

 168

 212

 200

 188

 200

4,003

4,706

4,911

6,315

5,555

2,658

1,243

1,573

2,439

-276

1,216

2,891

2,771

1,980

8,802

5,084

4,846

4,971

4,655

4,878

4,407

6,602

4,416

4,553

10,362

4,419

3,278

1,704

4,268

1,614

1,305

ELEV STORAGE

 132,943

 572,140

 576,846

 581,757

 588,072

 593,627

 596,285

 597,528

 599,101

 601,540

 601,264

 602,480

 605,371

 608,142

 610,122

 618,924

 624,008

 628,854

 633,825

 638,480

 643,358

 647,765

 654,367

 658,783

 663,336

 673,698

 678,117

 681,395

 683,099

 687,367

 688,981

 690,286

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 568,137

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
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41128

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODOLFO CANTU-BARAJAS,

 DefendantAppellant.

---------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-00-CR-394-1

----------------------------------------------------------

July 23, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Cantu-Barajas appeals following his jury trial conviction for possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Cantu argues that

there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the district court erred in denying

his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor at his trial improperly commented on his post-arrest

silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619-20 (1976). 

Cantu stipulated that he had driven a vehicle containing 18.03 kilograms of cocaine. He

argues only that there wasinsufficient evidence asto the knowledge element required to convict him.

This court has recognized that a jury may infer a defendant’s guilty knowledge based on the quantity

of drugs, aslong as other evidence supportsthat inference. United States v. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d
 

451, 455 (5th Cir. 2001). Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,

see United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998), Cantu gave inconsistent

statements regarding the ownership of the vehicle he was driving and his account of how he came to

be in possession of the vehicle and the cocaine was implausible. Because this type of circumstantial

evidence issufficient to prove guilty knowledge, United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 125 (2000), we conclude that there wassufficient evidence to support

Cantu’s conviction.

Cantu’s argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial also fails.

Where, as here, an objection is interposed before an improper question can be answered, and the

objection is followed by an instruction to the jury to ignore the question, no Doyle violation occurs.

United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Cantu’s motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d

693, 699 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 1412 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM158AD

777 - 32 - 0083 --- 2/5/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
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

 492

 446

 406

 463

 459

 417

 462

 472

 509

 544

 506

 498

 569

 509

 530

 459

 456

 437

 439

 441

 428

 504

 483

 490

 470

 408

 415

 461

 452

 455

 450

 360

 360

 357

 345

 344

 350

 352

 344

 346

 344

 344

 342

 339

 345

 355

 355

 357

 360

 366

 362

 355

 354

 350

 349

 352

 368

 365

 371

 388

 399

 412

 391

 379

 371

 372

 371

 364

 373

 369

 375

 377

 367

 370

 390

 379

 394

 377

 378

 382

 383

 385

 376

 380

 390

 386

 384

 384

 391

 405

 416

 424

 432

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 7, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 258

 250

 245

 246

 245

 241

 247

 244

 248

 249

 243

 245

 257

 250

 259

 249

 250

 252

 253

 254

 248

 251

 257

 255

 253

 253

 258

 266

 273

 278

 283

TOTAL 11,915

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, James G. Clark, certify that:****

1.

I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Education Lending Group, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 thisreport;

3.

Based on my knowledge, thefinancial 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

4.

The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.

The small business issuer’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (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 arereasonably likely 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 other employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

| Date: February 27, 2004 |   | By:     | /s/ JAMES G. CLARK          |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------|-----------------------------|
|                    |   |         |                             |
|                    |   | Name:   | **James G. Clark**          |
|                    |   | Title:  | **Chief Financial Officer** |
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**






Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
      have
      issued our reports dated April 24, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial
      statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
      over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Sigma Designs, Inc.
      on
      Form 10-K for the year ended January 28, 2006. We hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration statements of
      Sigma Designs, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-122323 effective January 27,
      2005
      and amended on February 18, 2005 and March 2, 2005) and Forms S-8 (File No.
      333-132303 effective March 9, 2006, File No. 333-128895, effective October
      10,
      2005, File No. 333-114374, effective April 5, 2004, File No. 333-106978,
      effective July 11, 2003, File No. 333-83126 effective February 12, 2002, and
      File No. 333-64234, effective June 29, 2001, and File No. 333-86875, effective
      September 10, 1999, and File No. 333-103513, effective February 21, 1996.)






/s/
      Grant
      Thornton LLP





San
      Jose,
      California


April
      24,
      2006






E-5
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 HIGH

 422

 426

 423

 420

 418

 419

 413

 414

 413

 430

 421

 412

 411

 406

 413

 393

 395

 396

 392

 389

 388

 376

 376

 370

 373

 393

 368

 366

 395

 381

 383

 389

 388

 391

 392

 389

 383

 380

 375

 373

 373

 356

 354

 362

 362

 361

 369

 339

 355

 346

 347

 345

 339

 337

 335

 332

 411

 408

 407

 407

 407

 405

 403

 402

 402

 405

 402

 397

 396

 391

 383

 380

 381

 383

 382

 377

 375

 369

 363

 360

 358

 359

 356

 355

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2022 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
July 2023

STORAGE 1000 ACRE-FEET COMPUTED* RELEASE - C.F.S. EVAPORATION PRECIP

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE INFLOW C.F.S. OUTLET SPILL C.F.S. INCHES INCHES

48.42

1 1,198.28 48.39 -0.04 15 0 14 19 0.33 0.00

2 1,198.27 48.37 -0.02 24 0 9 24 0.42 0.00

3 1,198.25 48.33 -0.04 25 0 17 26 0.46 0.00

4 1,198.23 48.30 -0.04 22 0 17 23 0.41 0.00

5 1,198.21 48.26 -0.04 14 0 17 15 0.27 0.00

6 1,198.20 48.25 -0.02 14 0 9 14 0.24 0.00

7 1,198.18 48.21 -0.04 12 0 18 12 0.21 0.00

8 1,198.17 48.19 -0.02 2 0 0 11 0.19 0.00

9 1,198.15 48.16 -0.04 -7 0 0 11 0.20 0.00

10 1,198.13 48.12 -0.04 -8 0 0 10 0.17 0.00

11 1,198.12 48.11 -0.02 2 0 0 11 0.20 0.00

12 1,198.10 48.07 -0.04 -4 0 0 14 0.25 0.00

13 1,198.07 48.02 -0.05 -12 0 0 15 0.26 0.00

14 1,198.06 48.00 -0.02 3 0 0 12 0.21 0.00

15 1,198.03 47.95 -0.05 5 15 0 16 0.28 0.00

16 1,198.01 47.91 -0.04 20 22 0 16 0.28 0.00

17 1,197.97 47.84 -0.07 -5 11 0 19 0.34 0.00

18 1,197.97 47.84 0.00 30 11 0 19 0.34 0.00

19 1,197.91 47.74 -0.11 -26 11 0 16 0.28 0.00

20 1,197.87 47.67 -0.07 -10 11 0 14 0.24 0.00

21 1,197.83 47.60 -0.07 -9 11 0 15 0.26 0.00

22 1,197.80 47.55 -0.05 4 11 0 19 0.34 0.00

23 1,197.76 47.48 -0.07 -3 11 0 21 0.38 0.00

24 1,197.72 47.41 -0.07 -3 11 0 21 0.38 0.00

25 1,197.68 47.34 -0.07 4 22 0 17 0.31 0.00

26 1,197.65 47.29 -0.05 10 22 0 14 0.25 0.00

27 1,197.61 47.22 -0.07 1 22 0 14 0.25 0.00

28 1,197.58 47.16 -0.05 12 15 0 23 0.40 0.00

29 1,197.55 47.11 -0.05 4 15 0 15 0.26 0.00

30 1,197.52 47.06 -0.05 7 15 0 18 0.32 0.00

31 1,197.48 46.99 -0.07 -3 15 0 17 0.31 0.00

TOTALS -1.48 140 251 101 511 9.04 0.00

ACRE-FEET -1,480 278 498 200 1,014

Comments: *Computed inflow is the sum of change in storage, releases and evaporation.

 Data based on 24 hour period ending 0800.

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Outlet 498

Spill 200

Total 698

Precipitation

This month = 0.00

October 01, 2022 To date = 15.45

SUMMARY

Historical Archive and Report Database

East Park Reservoir Daily Operations

Run Date: 8/10/2023
### §3622. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title XIV, §1401(c), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3294

Section, Pub. L. 103–465, title IV, §424, Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4965, related to the President's report to Congress on access to Canadian dairy and poultry markets.