alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.27 When does the Secretary enter into a repayment agreement rather than offset? ( a ) If a debtor wants an opportunity to enter into a written agreement to repay a debt on terms acceptable to the Secretary, the debtor must: ( 1 ) File a request to enter into such agreement within 20 days after the date of the notice provided under § 30.22; and
( 2 ) File the request at the address specified in the notice.
( b ) A request filed under paragraph (a) of this section must contain all information provided to the debtor in the notice under § 30.22 or § 30.33(b) that identifies the debtor and the debt, including the debtor's Social Security number and the program under which the debt arose, together with any corrections of that identifying information.
( c ) If the Secretary receives a request filed in accordance with this section, the Secretary may enter into a written agreement requiring repayment in accordance with 4 CFR 102.11, instead of offsetting the debt.
( d ) In deciding whether to enter into the agreement, the Secretary may consider: ( 1 ) The Government's interest in collecting the debt; and
( 2 ) Fairness to the debtor.
( e ) ( 1 ) A debtor that enters into a repayment agreement with the Secretary under this section waives any right to further review by the Secretary of the issues relating to the original debt identified in the notice under § 30.22(b)(3)(ii) or § 30.33(b)(3)(ii).
( 2 ) If a debtor breaches a repayment agreement, the Secretary may offset, or, under § 30.30, refer to another agency for offset: ( i ) The amount owing under the agreement; or
( ii ) The entire original debt, to the extent not repaid.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221-3(a)(1) and 1226a-1, 31 U.S.C. 3716(b))
[51 FR 24099, July 1, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 35647, Oct. 7, 1986]
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

 287

 277

 266

 256

 245

 239

 231

 227

 222

 210

 208

 200

 198

 197

 192

 196

 194

 187

 187

 186

 183

 180

 178

 175

 173

 172

 170

 170

 171

 170

 247

 243

 236

 230

 224

 215

 208

 204

 203

 200

 195

 187

 182

 182

 184

 179

 182

 178

 178

 176

 175

 171

 168

 166

 165

 164

 159

 165

 161

 162

 268

 259

 251

 242

 236

 228

 220

 216

 211

 205

 201

 193

 191

 190

 188

 188

 187

 183

 183

 181

 178

 176

 174

 171

 169

 167

 166

 167

 166

 165

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 2, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
#### Thomas O. McLean v. Henrietta Gardner.

Motion granted, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
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 ELEV

 1,901.54

 1,901.27

 1,901.05

 1,901.32

 1,901.67

 1,901.12

 1,901.62

 1,901.36

 1,900.92

 1,900.87

 1,901.51

 1,901.38

 1,901.08

 1,901.75

 1,901.15

 1,901.31

 1,901.49

 1,901.62

 1,901.52

 1,901.59

 1,901.72

 1,901.06

 1,900.98

 1,901.17

 1,901.73

 1,901.67

 1,901.08

 1,901.40

 1,901.70

 1,901.17

 1,901.64

 14,315

 14,113

 13,948

 14,150

 14,412

 14,001

 14,375

 14,180

 13,852

 13,815

 14,292

 14,195

 13,971

 14,472

 14,023

 14,143

 14,278

 14,375

 14,300

 14,352

 14,450

 13,956

 13,896

 14,038

 14,457

 14,412

 13,971

 14,210

 14,435

 14,038

 14,390

STORAGE

-209

-202

-165

+202

+262

-411

+374

-195

-328

-37

+477

-97

-224

+501

-449

+120

+135

+97

-75

+52

+98

-494

-60

+142

+419

-45

-441

+239

+225

-397

+352

CHANGE

3,118

3,088

3,455

3,641

3,671

3,331

3,782

3,414

3,242

3,259

3,159

2,646

2,218

2,454

2,073

2,646

2,561

2,863

2,640

2,700

2,786

2,374

2,843

2,592

2,826

2,339

2,134

2,762

2,698

2,084

2,219

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 77

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 1,864

 1,856

 1,851

 1,851

 1,851

 1,851

 1,795

 1,862

 1,870

 1,662

 1,321

 1,120

 875

 576

 597

 576

 571

 580

 580

 581

 584

 580

 581

 581

 580

 512

 444

 405

 346

 295

 293

SPILL

 40

 47

 50

 50

 50

 50

 48

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 55

 65

 65

 65

 65

 65

 65

 65

 65

 65

 65

OUTLETS

 5

 4

 4

 5

 5

 4

 6

 7

 8

 6

 5

 6

 8

 6

 6

 8

 4

 4

 2

 5

 7

 8

 3

 3

 3

 3

 4

 0

 7

 5

 5

C.F.S.

 .23

 .19

 .20

 .21

 .24

 .17

 .26

 .31

 .35

 .26

 .24

 .26

 .35

 .26

 .26

 .35

 .19

 .19

 .10

 .24

 .32

 .35

 .14

 .14

 .15

 .14

 .17

 .27

 .30

 .21

 .21

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2008 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 4, 2008

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -134 87,618 2,477 1,690 30,891 156 7.26

ACRE-FEET -134 173,790 4,913 3,352 61,272 309

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

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,913

TOTAL RIVER 69,537 173,615

 14,524

 104,078

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 1,234

 1,203

 1,553

 1,553

 1,553

 1,553

 1,667

 1,513

 1,399

 1,480

 1,463

 1,439

 1,318

 1,489

 1,566

 1,872

 1,788

 2,100

 1,966

 1,958

 2,011

 1,890

 2,144

 1,791

 1,887

 1,702

 1,763

 2,092

 2,087

 1,839

 1,599

 52,472

 104,078

Table 6
### Part E—Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part E, consisting of sections 6491 to 6494, related to national assessment of subchapter I, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–95, title I, §1501(a)(1), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1905.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles Bland, Chief 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 the Quarterly Report of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.



|                  |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 9, 2007 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ CHARLES R. BLAND   
|                  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Charles R. Bland       
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### William H. Henry & Company, Appellant, v. George B. Houston, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
----

**NAVTECH,      INC. **
**and      SUBSIDIARIES**

**EXHIBIT      32**

----

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER **

**AND      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                      |                                                               |                                |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                      |                                                               |
|                                 |                                                          |                           |
| Date:               January 25, 2007 | By:                                                      | /s/ David              Strucke |
|                                      | David                StruckeChief                Executive Officer |
|                                      |                                                               |
|         |                                                              |                               |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|         |                                                              |
|    |                                                         |                          |
|         | By:                                                     | /s/ Gordon              Heard |
|         | Gordon                HeardChief                Financial Officer |
|         |                                                              |
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

 1,934

 1,962

 1,864

 1,774

 1,761

 1,714

 1,730

 1,661

 1,558

 1,718

 1,671

 1,632

 1,584

 1,546

 1,616

 1,661

 1,730

 1,804

 1,844

 1,862

 1,904

 1,894

 1,849

 1,720

 1,560

 1,483

 1,412

 1,424

 1,532

 1,526

 1,546

 1,342

 1,222

 1,261

 1,161

 1,116

 1,129

 1,100

 1,119

 1,037

 1,171

 1,171

 1,191

 1,197

 1,158

 1,196

 1,139

 1,085

 1,066

 1,034

 1,043

 1,115

 1,097

 1,143

 1,186

 1,141

 1,135

 1,165

 1,134

 1,142

 1,159

 1,104

 1,620

 1,614

 1,616

 1,503

 1,528

 1,458

 1,383

 1,426

 1,333

 1,426

 1,445

 1,440

 1,407

 1,375

 1,383

 1,375

 1,380

 1,400

 1,408

 1,408

 1,464

 1,466

 1,473

 1,461

 1,405

 1,358

 1,291

 1,255

 1,296

 1,328

 1,350

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 27, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
Editorial Note on Part 18
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 18 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5471, 5472, Jan. 19, 2001.

§ 18.2 Applicability of law. Except as specified in 26 U.S.C. 5511, the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 51 are not applicable to the manufacture, by any process which includes evaporations from the mash or juice of any fruit, of any volatile fruit-flavor concentrate if: ( a ) The concentrate, and the mash or juice from which it is produced, contains no more alcohol than is reasonably unavoidable in the manufacture of the concentrate; and
( b ) The concentrate is rendered unfit for use as a beverage before removal from the place of manufacture, or (in the case of concentrate which does not exceed 24 percent alcohol by volume) the concentrate is transferred to a bonded wine cellar for use in the production of natural wine; and
( c ) The manufacturer of concentrate complies with all requirements for the protection of the revenue with respect to the production, removal, sale, transportation, and use of concentrate, and of the mash or juice from which it is produced, as may be prescribed by this part.
(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1392, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5511))
#### SPRING CREEK HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Hillel Meyers, Seymour Svirsky, and Metairie Corporation, Appellees, v. Marvin KEITH, Appellant.

No. 05-1889.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 28, 2006.

Filed: Aug. 8, 2006.

Ben H. Harris, III, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, AL, Thomas S. Doerr, Ramsey Berman, Morristown, NJ, for Appellees.

Richard D. Gaines, Richard D. Gaines & Associates, Newton, NJ, for Appellant.

Before: BARRY, VAN ANTWERPEN, and SILER *, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION

SILER, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief to Defendant-Appellant Marvin Keith. Having considered the parties’ arguments, we will affirm the judgment of the district court.1

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, it is unnecessary for us to recite them here. Keith asserts that he owns the controlling ownership interest in Metairie Corporation and Spring Creek Holding Company, companies that own a certain parcel of property in New Jersey. Plaintiffs Spring Creek Holding Company, Hillel Meyers, Seymour Svirsky and Metairie Corporation assert that Meyers and Svirsky are the controlling owners.

The district court did not abuse its discretion, commit an obvious error of law, or make a serious mistake in considering the proof in finding that (1) monetary damages would provide Keith adequate relief should his underlying claims be successful; and (2) the sale of Metairie’s assets was not imminent. *See Ademo,*40 F.3d at 653. In addition, Keith failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying claims, *Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc.,*42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir.1994), as is necessary to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and we accordingly discern no impropriety with the district court’s denial of the injunction.

1

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion and the factual findings underlying the district court's decision for clear error. *Ademo v. New Castle County,*40 F.3d 645, 652-53 (3d Cir.1994).
### §1067e–2. Evaluation and accountability plan

The Secretary shall develop an evaluation and accountability plan for projects funded under this subpart. Such plan shall include, if the Secretary determines that it is practical, an objective measure of the impact of such projects, such as a measure of whether underrepresented minority student enrollment in courses related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics increases at the secondary and postsecondary levels.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title III, §357, as added Pub. L. 110–315, title III, §315(a)(2), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3184.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 357 of Pub. L. 89–329 was renumbered section 396 and is classified to section 1068e of this title.
---

---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly
report of Ampal-American Israel Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned executive officers of the
Company certifies, to the best of such executive officers knowledge, pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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
Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Yosef A. Maiman
Yosef A. Maiman
Chairman of the Board, President and CEO
Ampal-American Israel Corporation
August 5, 2009 | /s/ Irit Eluz
Irit Eluz
CFO and Senior Vice President Finance and Treasurer
Ampal-American Israel Corporation
August 5, 2009
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



---

---
### subpart 4—academic enrichment
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear by T.D. ATF-435, 66 FR 5475, Jan. 19, 2001. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear by 81 T.D. TTB-140, 81 FR Aug. 30, 2016.

§ 21.105-T2 Cyclohexane. ( a ) *Specific gravity at 20 °C.* 0.75 to 0.80.
( b ) *Odor.* Characteristic odor.
[T.D. TTB-140, 81 FR 59462, Aug. 30, 2016]
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 ELEV

 1,901.47

 1,900.92

 1,901.06

 1,900.91

 1,901.09

 1,900.77

 1,901.47

 1,901.35

 1,900.68

 1,901.17

 1,901.82

 1,901.17

 1,901.75

 1,901.67

 1,901.40

 1,900.74

 1,901.42

 1,901.79

 1,900.98

 1,901.09

 1,900.79

 1,901.00

 1,900.70

 1,900.31

 1,900.80

 1,900.66

 1,900.67

 1,900.96

 1,900.82

 1,900.39

 1,900.88

 14,263

 13,852

 13,956

 13,845

 13,978

 13,742

 14,263

 14,173

 13,675

 14,038

 14,524

 14,038

 14,472

 14,412

 14,210

 13,720

 14,225

 14,502

 13,896

 13,978

 13,756

 13,911

 13,690

 13,403

 13,764

 13,661

 13,668

 13,882

 13,779

 13,462

 13,823

STORAGE

+661

-411

+104

-111

+133

-236

+521

-90

-498

+363

+486

-486

+434

-60

-202

-490

+505

+277

-606

+82

-222

+155

-221

-287

+361

-103

+7

+214

-103

-317

+361

CHANGE

4,757

4,405

4,490

4,388

4,295

4,252

4,078

3,711

3,681

4,075

3,794

3,256

3,444

3,298

2,805

3,390

3,143

2,307

2,501

2,477

2,408

2,736

2,841

2,470

3,035

2,789

2,975

2,603

2,431

2,308

3,149

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 2,501

 2,393

 2,363

 2,286

 2,169

 2,073

 1,997

 1,866

 1,862

 1,561

 1,552

 1,386

 1,212

 1,058

 908

 818

 747

 593

 524

 482

 440

 358

 303

 287

 291

 301

 307

 314

 318

 317

 289

SPILL

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 51

 57

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 60

 61

 60

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 61

 67

OUTLETS

 7

 7

 6

 7

 7

 6

 6

 5

 6

 6

 6

 7

 7

 7

 7

 7

 6

 7

 7

 8

 7

 2

 7

 7

 8

 7

 8

 8

 8

 8

 7

C.F.S.

 .33

 .32

 .27

 .32

 .30

 .28

 .27

 .21

 .28

 .27

 .26

 .32

 .30

 .31

 .33

 .32

 .28

 .31

 .32

 .37

 .34

 .07

 .33

 .33

 .35

 .30

 .38

 .35

 .38

 .36

 .30

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2006 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 19, 2006

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +221 102,292 2,480 1,781 33,876 209 9.46

ACRE-FEET +221 202,896 4,919 3,533 67,193 415

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

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,919

TOTAL RIVER 75,645 202,260

 13,602

 126,615

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 1,785

 2,081

 1,938

 2,020

 1,921

 2,161

 1,681

 1,754

 1,933

 2,194

 1,860

 1,971

 1,865

 2,122

 1,851

 2,671

 1,994

 1,426

 2,135

 1,805

 1,933

 2,157

 2,502

 2,180

 2,413

 2,392

 2,515

 2,032

 2,016

 2,002

 2,524

 63,834

 126,615

Table 6
(No. 73-CC-43

#### Callaghan and Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 7, 1973.*

Riordan, Malone and Kelly, Attorney for Claimant.

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

Per Curiam.
(No. 73-CC-159

#### Charles Ruffini, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 19, 1973.*

Charles Ruffini, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1344

HERSHEL L. BERRY; DONNA S. BERRY, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. KIMBERLY SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New York; KIMBERLY JEAN CARRELLA, a/k/a Kimberly Jean Misaraca; SHANE ANDERSON CHAMBERS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, District Judge. (2:03-cv-00157)

Submitted: December 23, 2008 Decided: January 27, 2009

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua I. Barrett, Sean P. McGinley, Heather M. Langeland, DITRAPANO, BARRETT & DIPIERO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hershel L. Berry and Donna S. Berry appeal the district court’s orders denying their motion to reopen and to amend the complaint and for reconsideration. Although the district court’s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) was misplaced, we conclude that the denial of relief was not an abuse of discretion in light of the Berrys’ excessive delay in seeking to amend the complaint and the absence of a valid reason for such delay. See Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating standard of review for denial of motion to amend complaint); Smith v. EMC Corp. , 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[A]t some point, time delay on the part of a plaintiff [seeking to amend a complaint] can be procedurally fatal.”). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

31

DAY HIGH

 163

 162

 161

 157

 150

 146

 147

 143

 142

 150

 144

 147

 145

 146

 146

 152

 148

 150

 152

 155

 151

 150

 159

 159

 154

 163

 161

 156

 163

 171

 174

 152

 147

 147

 135

 134

 135

 134

 133

 131

 134

 133

 131

 131

 136

 131

 131

 135

 139

 139

 140

 139

 136

 136

 140

 139

 143

 143

 145

 148

 158

 165

 156

 155

 155

 145

 142

 140

 140

 138

 137

 140

 136

 137

 139

 139

 140

 139

 138

 145

 144

 148

 144

 143

 147

 150

 146

 151

 149

 148

 158

 166

 170

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 3, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

GREENS LANDING ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER