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

DAY ELEV

 565.32

 564.79

 564.07

 563.03

 562.20

 561.62

 561.40

 561.50

 561.63

 562.01

 562.25

 562.68

 563.23

 564.05

 565.00

 565.87

 567.12

 568.37

 569.50

 571.03

 572.33

 573.52

 574.36

 575.42

 575.97

 576.66

 576.68

 576.72

 576.91

 577.13

 460.4

 458.0

 454.7

 450.0

 446.3

 443.7

 442.7

 443.2

 443.7

 445.4

 446.5

 448.5

 450.9

 454.6

 459.0

 463.0

 468.7

 474.5

 479.8

 487.0

 493.1

 498.8

 502.9

 508.0

 510.6

 514.0

 514.1

 514.3

 515.2

 516.3

STORAGE

-1.5

-2.4

-3.3

-4.7

-3.7

-2.6

-1.0

+0.4

+0.6

+1.7

+1.1

+1.9

+2.5

+3.7

+4.3

+4.0

+5.8

+5.8

+5.3

+7.2

+6.2

+5.7

+4.0

+5.1

+2.7

+3.4

+0.1

+0.2

+0.9

+1.1

CHANGE

3,680

3,302

3,251

3,003

3,714

3,685

4,131

4,155

3,781

4,151

3,685

3,853

3,766

3,928

3,912

3,673

4,328

4,037

3,548

4,388

3,788

3,510

2,911

3,666

2,732

3,768

2,911

3,153

3,445

3,589

INFLOW

 723

 750

 847

 932

 982

 1,013

 1,020

 930

 880

 790

 740

 701

 699

 684

 612

 554

 413

 308

 232

 181

 170

 170

 286

 386

 434

 476

 509

 546

 508

 461

MADERA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 3,497

 3,587

 3,826

 4,194

 4,353

 3,737

 3,372

 2,776

 2,375

 2,300

 2,200

 1,977

 1,611

 1,211

 942

 958

 913

 704

 542

 471

 400

 374

 490

 593

 854

 1,483

 2,208

 2,342

 2,300

 2,433

FRIANT-KERN

 70

 34

 48

 31

 42

 25

 41

 46

 54

 23

 31

 51

 56

 26

 59

 33

 1

 18

 30

 32

 38

 31

 30

 36

 28

 20

 21

 43

 47

 30

C.F.S.

 .47

 .23

 .33

 .21

 .29

 .17

 .28

 .32

 .37

 .16

 .21

 .35

 .38

 .18

 .40

 .22

 .01

 .12

 .20

 .21

 .25

 .20

 .19

 .23

 .18

 .13

 .13

 .27

 .30

 .19

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 1.01

 .42

 .00

 .08

 1.14

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2000 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 2, 2000

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +54.3 109,444 17,937 59,023 0 1,075 7.18 2.67

ACRE-FEET +54,319 217,082 35,578 117,072 0 2,132

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 117,072

 35,578 160,640

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 1999 TO DATE = 18.54

 462.0

 7,990 2.67

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 152

 152

 183

 220

 220

 220

 194

 178

 179

 181

 170

 149

 150

 136

 119

 119

 98

 80

 81

 81

 77

 74

 74

 74

 74

 97

 124

 124

 124

 124

RIVER

 4,028

 7,990

RIVER

Table 15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          42,881
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                       277
<INVENTORY>                                      8,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,672
<PP&E>                                          23,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,819
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,226
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,734
<SALES>                                         11,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,860
<CGS>                                            4,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,540)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       428
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,968)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)<F1><F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)<F1><F3>
<FN>
<F1>On August 22, 1997, the Company effected a two-for-one split of its outstanding
shares of Common Stock. This Restated Financial Data Schedule reflects the
stock split.
<F2>Data listed for "EPS-PRIMARY" is the newly defined "BASIC EPS".
<F3>Data listed for "EPS-DILUTED" is the newly defined "DILUTED EPS".
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83906 

FILED 

JAN O 3 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLEM OF ijPREME COURT 

BY. 

RAYMOND GEAN PADILLA, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from an "order denying motion to correct 

error of record by clerk" and an "order denying petitioner's motion for 

hearing on his petition for habeas corpus (post-conviction)." Eighth Judicial 

District Court;Clark County; Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, Judge. 

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from the 

aforementioned district court orders, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) 

(explaining that court has jurisdiction only when statute or court rule 

provid.esfor appeal). Accordingly, this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.' 

Cadish 

J. 

Herndon 

'Given this order, this court takes no action on the pro se motion for 

appointment of counsel filed on December 29, 2021. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

40) 1947A ,g-000.29 
cc: Hon. Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, District Judge 

Raymond Gean Padilla 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Oh 1947A VgatP
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean 14 DAY ACCUM MEAN 14 DAY AVG MEAN

1 145 131 137 2,072 148

2 140 130 136 2,047 146

3 140 128 134 2,022 144

4 136 123 128 1,993 142

5 131 121 124 1,962 140

6 132 118 123 1,933 138

7 129 118 123 1,907 136

8 129 118 124 1,882 134

9 132 121 125 1,858 133

10 129 121 126 1,838 131

11 131 120 126 1,822 130

12 131 119 125 1,805 129

13 131 120 124 1,790 128

14 129 119 123 1,778 127

15 127 120 123 1,764 126

16 129 122 125 1,753 125

17 127 121 124 1,743 125

18 126 118 122 1,737 124

19 125 115 119 1,732 124

20 125 112 117 1,726 123

21 122 110 115 1,718 123

22 118 109 113 1,707 122

23 117 107 112 1,694 121

24 117 104 110 1,678 120

25 173 119 142 1,694 121

26 167 137 152 1,721 123

27 493 129 245 1,842 132

28 244 197 227 1,946 139

29 223 203 213 2,036 145

30 244 217 227 2,138 153

31 263 240 249 2,263 162

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Jersey Point Top On The San Joaquin River 

Period: May 2023 Run Date: 6/12/2023
1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3723

___________ Joseph Charles Pelchat, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 9, 1999 Filed: March 12, 1999

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In October 1998, while Joseph Charles Pelchat was serving a four-year supervised release term, the district court 1 determined that he had violated his release conditions, revoked his release, and sentenced him to 14 months imprisonment and 22 additional months of supervised release. Pelchat appeals, arguing the district court-2-

erred in imposing additional supervised release after revocation and imposition of a prison term. We affirm.
Pelchatfirst mounts an attack on our decision in United States v. Schrader , 973 F.2d 623, 625 (8th Cir. 1992) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), district court may impose revocation sentence consisting of both imprisonment and supervised release). Notonly have we repeatedly declined to reconsider Schrader en banc, see, e.g. , United States v. Hartman , 57 F.3d 670, 671 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), but we specifically denied Pelchat’s motion for en banc consideration of this appeal.
Pelchatnext raises constitutional challenges to his revocation sentence. He argues that he could not have foreseen, at the time he was originally sentenced, that his conduct while on supervised release could subject him to both imprisonment and further supervised release, in violation of his due process rights. He also contends that applying 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (specifically authorizing imprisonment and supervised release upon revocation) to him violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, as subsection (h) was not in existence when he was originally sentenced. However, we have previously considered and rejected such arguments. See United States v. St. John , 92 F.3d 761, 763-67 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3201

___________ John Starway, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. Independent School District No. 625, * also know as St. Paul Public Schools, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 2001 Filed: December 4, 2001

___________ Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John Starway appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action against his former employer, Independent School District No. 625 (ISD). Starway claimed that, based on his national origin, he was subjected to a hostile work2 Mr. Starway also sought attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. -2- environment, in violation of Title VII, and was discharged, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Minnesota law. 2 Having reviewed the summary judgment grant de novo, see Austin v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. , 193 F.3d 992, 994 (8th Cir. 1999), we affirm. Mr. Starway failed to demonstrate his performance met ISD’s legitimate expectations. See Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu , 888 F.2d 591, 598 (9th Cir. 1989) (employer may honestly assess plaintiff’s oral communications skills when such skills are reasonably related to job performance); cf. Taylor v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 251 F.3d 735, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (to make prima facie case, employee must show, inter alia, job performance at level that met employer’s legitimate expectations). Although ISD was slow to provide Mr. Starway with guidance and an improvement plan, its actions, under the circumstances, did not support an inference of pretext. See Brousard-Norcross v. Augustana Coll. Ass’n , 935 F.2d 974, 976-77 (8th Cir. 1991) (departure from policy did not support inference of pretext when departure was driven by student complaint). Mr. Starway also failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to harassment so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of his employment, or that a causal nexus linked the efforts to fire him with his national origin. See Austin , 193 F.3d at 994 (employee must establish causal connection between harassment and protected-group status); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (“Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment--an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive--is beyond Title VII’s purview.”). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; we deny Mr. Starway’s pending motion; and we grant ISD’s request to strike documents that were not part of the district court record, but we deny ISD’s request for sanctions.-3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §1138b. Administrative provisions

The Secretary may appoint, for terms not to exceed 3 years, without regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service, not more than 7 technical employees to administer this part who may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title VII, §743, as added Pub. L. 105–244, title VII, §701, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1797; amended Pub. L. 110–315, title VII, §707(h)(2), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3360.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 1135a–1 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–244.

A prior section 1138b, Pub. L. 89–329, title XI, §1143, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title XI, §1101, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 789, related to use of funds, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–244, §3, title VII, §702, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1585, 1803, effective Oct. 1, 1998.

Another prior section 1138b, Pub. L. 89–329, title XI, §1123, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title XI, §1101, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1571, defined terms, prior to the general amendment of subchapter XI of this chapter by Pub. L. 102–325.

A prior section 743 of Pub. L. 89–329 was classified to section 1132c–2 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 96–374.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–315 struck out subsec. (a) designation and heading before "The Secretary may appoint," and struck out subsec. (b). Prior to amendment, text of subsec. (b) read as follows: "The Director shall establish procedures for reviewing and evaluating grants and contracts made or entered into under this part. Procedures for reviewing grant applications or contracts for financial assistance under this section may not be subject to any review outside of officials responsible for the administration of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education."
§ 99.30 Under what conditions is prior consent required to disclose information? ( a ) The parent or eligible student shall provide a signed and dated written consent before an educational agency or institution discloses personally identifiable information from the student's education records, except as provided in § 99.31.
( b ) The written consent must: ( 1 ) Specify the records that may be disclosed;
( 2 ) State the purpose of the disclosure; and
( 3 ) Identify the party or class of parties to whom the disclosure may be made.
( c ) When a disclosure is made under paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) If a parent or eligible student so requests, the educational agency or institution shall provide him or her with a copy of the records disclosed; and
( 2 ) If the parent of a student who is not an eligible student so requests, the agency or institution shall provide the student with a copy of the records disclosed.
( d ) “Signed and dated written consent” under this part may include a record and signature in electronic form that— ( 1 ) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic consent; and
( 2 ) Indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic consent.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b)(1) and (b)(2)(A))
[53 FR 11943, Apr. 11, 1988, as amended at 58 FR 3189, Jan. 7, 1993; 69 FR 21671, Apr. 21, 2004]
### subpart 3—administrative and general provisions

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–315, title III, §315(a)(1), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3182, redesignated subpart 2 (§1067 et seq.) of this part as subpart 3 of this part.

Pub. L. 105–244, title III, §301(a)(5), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1636, redesignated subpart 3 (§1135d et seq.) of part B of subchapter X of this chapter as subpart 2 of this part.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY ELEV

 1,901.54

 1,901.53

 1,901.66

 1,901.63

 1,901.55

 1,901.82

 1,901.75

 1,901.68

 1,901.74

 1,901.90

 1,901.60

 1,901.38

 1,901.36

 1,901.24

 1,901.26

 1,901.21

 1,901.12

 1,901.56

 1,901.68

 1,901.29

 1,900.88

 1,901.31

 1,901.48

 1,901.47

 1,901.54

 1,901.51

 1,901.23

 1,900.96

 14,315

 14,307

 14,405

 14,382

 14,322

 14,524

 14,472

 14,420

 14,465

 14,584

 14,360

 14,195

 14,180

 14,091

 14,105

 14,068

 14,001

 14,330

 14,420

 14,128

 13,823

 14,143

 14,270

 14,263

 14,315

 14,292

 14,083

 13,882

STORAGE

+0

-8

+98

-23

-60

+202

-52

-52

+45

+119

-224

-165

-15

-89

+14

-37

-67

+329

+90

-292

-305

+320

+127

-7

+52

-23

-209

-201

CHANGE

330

341

378

313

333

526

496

468

401

441

318

244

321

293

354

330

316

514

400

209

195

509

415

348

374

326

279

239

INFLOW

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 109

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

POWER

 140

 140

 141

 141

 141

 142

 148

 146

 146

 163

 170

 168

 165

 174

 183

 184

 185

 184

 189

 188

 185

 184

 187

 188

 180

 143

 140

 176

SPILL

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

OUTLETS

 1

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 2

 4

 0

 0

 0

 0

 4

 2

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .03

 .00

 .01

 .02

 .04

 .03

 .00

 .03

 .03

 .04

 .04

 .08

 .05

 .00

 .03

 .04

 .06

 .01

 .10

 .16

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .16

 .07

 .01

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2017 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 10, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -433 10,011 3,079 1,120 4,621 24 1.04

ACRE-FEET -433 19,857 6,107 2,222 9,166 48

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

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE.

(2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 6,107

TOTAL RIVER 17,495 20,246

 14,315

 2,751

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 39

 55

 38

 34

 71

 131

 224

 197

 81

 68

 110

 7

 13

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 43

 94

 14

 1,387

 2,751

Table 6
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

 2,118

 2,765

 2,935

 3,183

 2,998

 3,259

 3,582

 2,563

 2,698

 2,544

 2,409

 2,177

 2,313

 2,259

 2,255

 2,664

 2,930

 3,150

 3,226

 2,999

 2,871

 2,562

 2,303

 2,462

 2,879

 2,637

 2,618

 2,885

 4,188

 3,766

 739

 770

 870

 884

 849

 844

 934

 915

 820

 968

 1,033

 985

 957

 933

 948

 962

 1,056

 1,087

 1,087

 1,106

 1,166

 1,119

 1,102

 1,121

 1,114

 1,091

 1,042

 1,055

 1,063

 1,096

 1,104

 1,392

 1,401

 1,516

 1,475

 1,612

 1,766

 1,479

 1,433

 1,400

 1,468

 1,347

 1,298

 1,306

 1,400

 1,520

 1,646

 1,687

 1,798

 1,781

 1,777

 1,673

 1,571

 1,499

 1,566

 1,460

 1,382

 1,469

 1,845

 1,782

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 6, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 14,507

 14,985

 15,436

 15,933

 16,282

 16,716

 17,396

 17,826

 18,266

 18,596

 19,005

 19,346

 19,668

 19,997

 20,293

 20,421

 20,666

 20,837

 21,160

 21,329

 21,340

 21,534

 21,672

 21,771

 21,869

 21,982

 22,066

 22,229

 22,674

 22,936

 1,036

 1,070

 1,103

 1,138

 1,163

 1,194

 1,243

 1,273

 1,305

 1,328

 1,358

 1,382

 1,405

 1,428

 1,450

 1,459

 1,476

 1,488

 1,511

 1,524

 1,524

 1,538

 1,548

 1,555

 1,562

 1,570

 1,576

 1,588

 1,620

 1,638

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### §3118. Implied consent for certain tests

(a) Consent.—Whoever operates a motor vehicle in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States consents thereby to a chemical test or tests of such person's blood, breath, or urine, if arrested for any offense arising from such person's driving while under the influence of a drug or alcohol in such jurisdiction. The test or tests shall be administered upon the request of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested to have been driving a motor vehicle upon the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of the laws of a State, territory, possession, or district.

(b) Effect of Refusal.—Whoever, having consented to a test or tests by reason of subsection (a), refuses to submit to such a test or tests, after having first been advised of the consequences of such a refusal, shall be denied the privilege of operating a motor vehicle upon the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States during the period of a year commencing on the date of arrest upon which such test or tests was refused, and such refusal may be admitted into evidence in any case arising from such person's driving while under the influence of a drug or alcohol in such jurisdiction. Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States after having been denied such privilege under this subsection shall be treated for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of such operation as operating such vehicle without a license to do so.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6477(b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4381, §3117; renumbered §3118, Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, §3574, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4929.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–647 renumbered second section 3117 of this title as this section.
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

#### § 26.43 Samples.

The appropriate TTB officer may require samples of liquors and articles to be submitted whenever desired for laboratory analysis in order to determine the rates of tax applicable thereto.

[20 FR 6077, Aug. 20, 1955, as amended by T.D. 7006, 34 FR 2250, Feb. 15, 1969. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975]