alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

September-08

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG. Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Larval Yor N

1-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,948 4,376 6,324 3,864 8,680 12,544 

2-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,950 4,353 6,302 3,867 8,634 12,501 

3-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,037 4,372 6,409 4,040 8,672 12,712 

4-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,647 4,369 6,016 3,266 8,666 11,932 

5-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,875 4,390 6,265 3,719 8,707 12,426 

6-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,856 4,398 6,254 3,681 8,723 12,404 

7-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,946 4,402 6,348 3,860 8,731 12,591 

8-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,951 4,380 6,330 3,869 8,687 12,556 

9-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,951 4,373 6,323 3,869 8,673 12,542 

10-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,465 3,941 5,406 2,906 7,817 10,723 

11-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 759 3,724 4,483 1,505 7,387 8,892 

12-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 3,280 3,836 1,102 6,506 7,608 

13-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 2,832 3,387 1,102 5,617 6,719 14-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 2,818 3,373 1,102 5,589 6,691 15-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 541 2,817 3,358 1,074 5,587 6,661 16-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 3,468 4,018 1,091 6,879 7,970 17-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 596 3,708 4,304 1,182 7,354 8,536 18-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 598 3,715 4,313 1,187 7,368 8,555 19-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 553 3,714 4,267 1,097 7,367 8,464 20-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,714 3,714 0 7,367 7,367 #D

21-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,120 3,713 4,833 2,222 7,365 9,587 22-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 3,307 3,863 1,102 6,560 7,662 23-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 3,902 4,542 1,270 7,739 9,009 

24-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 565 4,342 4,906 1,120 8,612 9,732 25-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 563 4,301 4,864 1,116 8,532 9,648 26-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 547 4,282 4,829 1,085 8,493 9,578 27-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 547 4,303 4,850 1,084 8,535 9,619 28-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 544 4,292 4,836 1,079 8,513 9,592 29-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 561 4,289 4,850 1,113 8,507 9,620 30-Sep-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 562 4,291 4,853 1,115 8,511 9,626 

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 30,093 118,164 148,257 59,689 234,378 294,067 X

Delta Smelt Incidental Take LevelsBelow Normal Water Year TypeDelta smelt risk assessment matrix (DSRM) Adult level of concern = 892Re-consultation level for September = 100

D

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
#### § 7.7 Notice to employee of determination.

The employee-inventor shall be notified in writing of the Department's determination of the rights to his invention and of his right of appeal, if any. Notice need not be given if the employee stated in writing that he would agree to the determination of ownership which was in fact made.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-355-HAR, CA-96-1577-HAR) Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith William DeBlasio, Appellant Pro Se. Jane F. Barrett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We also deny the motion to stay this appeal filed by DeBlasio's mother on his behalf.2 PER CURIAM: Keith William DeBlasio appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1995 & Supp. 1997) motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing errors. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss. Because DeBlasio has served the entirety of his sentence, he is not entitled to relief under § 2255 absent a showing of adverse collateral consequences. See Courtney v. United States , 518 F.2d 514, 515 (4th Cir. 1975). DeBlasio attempts to demonstrate the existence of such a collateral consequence by asserting that, but for the alleged errors, he would have received a sentence of onlysix to twelve months and would not have been under supervised release when he engaged in additional criminal conduct. He continues that he then would not have received a sixteen-month sentence for his violation of terms of his supervised release. We conclude that even if DeBlasio's allegations were true, he would still have been under supervised release from the original conviction when he committed subsequent crimes. We therefore findno collateral consequences and no reason to deviate from the general rule set forth in Courtney . Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 21.1


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        JURISDICTION OF
NAME                                                                     INCORPORATION    PERCENT OWNED
---------------------------------------------------------------------   ---------------   -------------
<S>                                                                     <C>               <C>
Merrill/New York Company.............................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill/Magnus Publishing Corporation................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill Corporation, Canada .........................................      Ontario             100%
Merrill/May, Inc.....................................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill International Inc............................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill Real Estate Company..........................................      Minnesota           100%
FMC Resource Management Corporation..................................      Washington          100%
Merrill Training & Technology, Inc...................................      Minnesota           100%
</TABLE>
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

 123.06

 122.97

 123.24

 123.46

 123.32

 123.53

 123.63

 123.50

 123.42

 123.13

 124.00

 124.08

 123.22

 123.37

 123.38

 123.60

 123.75

 123.99

 123.92

 123.91

 123.84

 123.75

 123.81

 123.79

 123.76

 123.70

 124.18

 123.69

 123.18

 123.57

 123.81

 7,819

 7,778

 7,904

 8,007

 7,941

 8,040

 8,087

 8,026

 7,988

 7,852

 8,261

 8,301

 7,894

 7,965

 7,970

 8,073

 8,144

 8,256

 8,223

 8,219

 8,186

 8,144

 8,172

 8,162

 8,148

 8,120

 8,351

 8,115

 7,876

 8,059

 8,172

STORAGE

-226

-41

+126

+103

-66

+99

+47

-61

-38

-136

+409

+40

-407

+71

+5

+103

+71

+112

-33

-4

-33

-42

+28

-10

-14

-28

+231

-236

-239

+183

+113

CHANGE

1,424

1,555

1,588

1,591

1,513

1,372

1,317

1,272

1,273

1,229

1,508

1,315

1,089

1,336

1,297

1,354

1,328

1,366

1,279

1,298

1,290

1,272

1,303

1,286

1,292

1,283

1,437

1,230

1,178

1,328

1,205

INFLOW

 1,434

 1,474

 1,422

 1,437

 1,444

 1,220

 1,191

 1,200

 1,190

 1,194

 1,199

 1,193

 1,193

 1,199

 1,191

 1,200

 1,191

 1,208

 1,194

 1,198

 1,205

 1,192

 1,187

 1,190

 1,198

 1,195

 1,220

 1,244

 1,197

 1,142

 1,057

POWER

 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

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 62

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 4

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 3

 2

 4

 3

 2

 1

 1

 3

 2

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2001 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 16, 2001

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +127 41,408 38,199 0 1,862 57

ACRE-FEET +127 82,133 75,768 0 3,693 113

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 75,768

SPILL 0

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 2,432

 3,693

 8,045

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 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

 42

 40

 34

 30

 1,226

 2,432

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 81,893

Table 12
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

 542.27

 542.57

 544.28

 546.49

 548.30

 550.17

 551.96

 553.53

 555.01

 556.94

 557.62

 558.31

 559.36

 559.87

 560.43

 560.91

 561.32

 561.85

 562.27

 562.55

 562.80

 562.88

 563.07

 563.14

 563.47

 563.67

 563.77

 563.77

 563.58

 563.38

 361.9

 363.1

 370.0

 378.9

 386.4

 394.2

 401.7

 408.3

 414.7

 423.0

 426.0

 429.0

 433.7

 435.9

 438.4

 440.5

 442.4

 444.7

 446.6

 447.9

 449.0

 449.4

 450.2

 450.5

 452.0

 452.9

 453.4

 453.4

 452.5

 451.6

STORAGE

+1.9

+1.2

+6.9

+9.0

+7.4

+7.8

+7.5

+6.7

+6.3

+8.4

+3.0

+3.0

+4.6

+2.3

+2.5

+2.1

+1.8

+2.4

+1.9

+1.3

+1.1

+0.4

+0.9

+0.3

+1.5

+0.9

+0.5

+0.0

-0.9

-0.9

CHANGE

3,417

3,411

6,186

6,820

6,016

6,328

6,313

5,919

5,705

6,473

3,524

3,594

4,608

3,614

3,865

3,615

3,296

3,423

3,459

3,431

3,404

3,073

3,236

2,612

3,001

2,888

2,889

2,881

2,608

2,519

INFLOW

 777

 798

 771

 735

 706

 691

 694

 738

 760

 730

 685

 655

 659

 697

 715

 727

 753

 740

 720

 703

 690

 722

 760

 763

 743

 727

 718

 754

 805

 772

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

 1,289

 1,614

 1,553

 1,202

 1,216

 1,388

 1,480

 1,479

 1,418

 1,195

 1,012

 1,095

 1,271

 1,439

 1,556

 1,492

 1,283

 1,152

 1,441

 1,740

 1,806

 1,807

 1,688

 1,339

 1,151

 1,357

 1,587

 1,769

 1,852

 1,851

FRIANT-KERN

 55

 49

 59

 49

 56

 41

 63

 54

 43

 45

 38

 28

 53

 50

 50

 30

 46

 44

 55

 60

 48

 70

 63

 57

 61

 54

 63

 65

 91

 59

C.F.S.

 .43

 .38

 .45

 .37

 .42

 .30

 .46

 .39

 .31

 .32

 .27

 .20

 .37

 .35

 .35

 .21

 .32

 .30

 .38

 .41

 .33

 .48

 .43

 .39

 .42

 .37

 .43

 .44

 .62

 .40

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .20

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .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

JUNE 2016 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2016

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +91.6 122,128 21,908 43,522 0 1,599 11.30 .20

ACRE-FEET +91,606 242,241 43,455 86,326 0 3,172

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 86,326

 43,455 147,466

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2015 TO DATE = 20.06

 360.0

 17,685 0.20

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 335

 348

 349

 311

 285

 286

 288

 289

 289

 290

 291

 291

 292

 290

 291

 291

 291

 292

 293

 293

 293

 293

 293

 293

 293

 294

 293

 293

 293

 293

RIVER

 8,916

 17,685

RIVER
Cite as 2014 Ark. 324

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-13-476

DETRICK D. CROSTON

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered July 31, 2014

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE

FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT AND PRO SE REQUEST FOR

APPELLEE TO PRODUCE RECORDS

[NO. 23CR-04-1061]

HONORABLE MICHAEL A. MAGGIO,

JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED; REQUEST

MOOT.

PER CURIAM

In 2004, appellant Detrick D. Croston was found guilty by a jury in the Faulkner County

Circuit Court in case no. 23CR-04-1061 of aggravated robbery and theft of property and

sentenced as a habitual offender to 180 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $1000. No appeal

was taken, and a pro se motion for belated appeal was denied by this court. Croston v. State, CR06-425 (Ark. May 11, 2006) (unpublished per curiam).

On August 15, 2012, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error

coram nobis challenging the judgment. The trial court denied the petition on February 7, 2013. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the order on March 6, 2013, and he subsequently

lodged an appeal from the order in this court. He also filed the request that is now before us,

asking that the State be required to produce certain records to support the claims in the State’s

brief.

The appeal is dismissed as it is clear that appellant could not prevail on appeal. The

request is moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, 
Cite as 2014 Ark. 324

including a petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be permitted to go forward where it

is clear that the appellant could not succeed on appeal. Harris v. State, 2014 Ark. 671 (per

curiam).

The trial court in this case filed a second order on June 11, 2013, in which the court

stated,

Upon review of the pleadings and arguments, the Court finds that the Defendant’s

coram-nobis petition should be and hereby is DENIED.

Appellant appealed from the June 11, 2013 order by filing a notice of appeal on July 11, 2013,

and this court affirmed the June 11, 2013 order on December 5, 2013. Croston v. State, 2013 Ark.

504 (per curiam). We held in that decision that the claims of trial error raised by appellant in the

coram-nobis petition were not within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. The only

petition for writ of error coram nobis contained in the record in this appeal and the appeal from

the July 11, 2013 order is the petition filed August 15, 2012, indicating that the August 15, 2012

petition was denied twice.

As this court has already considered the issues raised in the coram-nobis petition and

determined that there were no grounds stated to warrant issuance of the writ, it is clear that

appellant could not prevail in an appeal from the February 7, 2013 order that denied the August

15, 2012 petition. For that reason, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed; request moot. 

Detrick D. Croston, pro se appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
(No. 74-CC-87

#### Frank B. Hall & Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 17, 1973.*

Frank B. Hall & Co., Claimant, pro se.

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

Per Curiam.
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

 503.60

 505.10

 506.22

 507.27

 508.56

 509.87

 511.15

 512.45

 513.68

 514.92

 516.20

 517.17

 518.36

 519.55

 520.70

 521.85

 523.00

 524.22

 525.28

 526.29

 527.20

 528.10

 528.98

 529.67

 530.29

 530.60

 530.97

 531.55

 532.04

 532.71

 533.21

 1,549,173

 1,566,575

 1,579,611

 1,591,866

 1,606,967

 1,622,352

 1,637,432

 1,652,798

 1,667,381

 1,682,127

 1,697,396

 1,708,999

 1,723,270

 1,737,582

 1,751,452

 1,765,359

 1,779,305

 1,794,141

 1,807,066

 1,819,411

 1,830,558

 1,841,606

 1,852,431

 1,860,935

 1,868,587

 1,872,417

 1,876,992

 1,884,171

 1,890,244

 1,898,558

 1,904,771

 6,027

 8,061

 8,100

 6,365

 8,056

 7,772

 7,743

 7,688

 7,678

 7,659

 7,650

 6,425

 7,574

 7,508

 7,481

 7,326

 7,199

 7,067

 6,944

 6,808

 5,850

 5,831

 6,557

 6,716

 6,376

 5,114

 6,259

 7,258

 7,233

 9,110

 7,023

 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 March 9, 2011

DAILY OPERATIONS

JANUARY 2011 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 372,125 0 7,752 202,103

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 16,527

 17,402

 13,036

 12,255

 15,101

 15,385

 15,080

 15,366

 14,583

 14,746

 15,269

 11,603

 14,271

 14,312

 13,870

 13,907

 13,946

 14,836

 12,925

 12,345

 11,147

 11,048

 10,825

 8,504

 7,652

 3,830

 4,575

 7,179

 6,073

 8,314

 6,213

 120

 120

 97

 56

 130

 134

 129

 130

 129

 256

 366

 360

 350

 353

 348

 345

 352

 350

 371

 379

 387

 396

 396

 419

 388

 149

 144

 144

 144

 142

 168

5,871

8,425

7,523

5,868

7,443

7,285

7,160

7,304

6,966

6,995

7,204

5,537

6,759

6,799

6,622

6,663

6,711

7,140

6,361

6,167

4,918

4,991

5,774

5,651

5,590

4,646

5,501

6,510

6,534

8,698

6,487

ELEV STORAGE

 220,458

 736,016

 744,441

 751,964

 757,832

 765,275

 772,560

 779,720

 787,024

 793,990

 800,985

 808,189

 813,726

 820,485

 827,284

 833,906

 840,569

 847,280

 854,420

 860,781

 866,948

 871,866

 876,857

 882,631

 888,282

 893,872

 898,518

 904,019

 910,529

 917,063

 925,761

 932,248

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 730,145

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
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.J.T., a child, * From the 3 26th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 53,430

- C

.

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 122

- C V * October 13 , 20 2 2

* Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the

order of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of

this appeal are taxed against Joshua E. Thomas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              22
<SECURITIES>                                         1
<RECEIVABLES>                                       57
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1
<INVENTORY>                                         89
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   172
<PP&E>                                             329
<DEPRECIATION>                                     180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               86
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                         172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       351
<SALES>                                            353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   353
<CGS>                                              341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    16
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (6)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (6)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

#### § 41.182 Availability of records.

The records required under § 41.181 shall be kept by the importer at his usual place of business unless otherwise authorized in writing by the appropriate TTB officer, and shall be made available for inspection by the appropriate TTB officer upon his request. (For retention period, see § 41.22.)

[T.D. ATF-40, 42 FR 5007, Jan. 26, 1977. Redesignated and amended by T.D. TTB-16, 69 FR 52424, 52425, Aug. 26, 2004]
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

 1,900.71

 1,900.76

 1,901.00

 1,900.80

 1,900.49

 1,900.35

 1,900.58

 1,900.54

 1,900.53

 1,900.55

 1,900.69

 1,900.62

 1,900.53

 1,901.00

 1,901.11

 1,901.19

 1,901.23

 1,901.12

 1,900.67

 1,900.98

 1,900.51

 1,900.55

 1,900.50

 1,900.65

 1,900.42

 1,900.53

 1,900.40

 1,900.52

 1,900.51

 1,900.49

 13,698

 13,734

 13,911

 13,764

 13,536

 13,433

 13,602

 13,572

 13,565

 13,580

 13,683

 13,631

 13,565

 13,911

 13,993

 14,053

 14,083

 14,001

 13,668

 13,896

 13,550

 13,580

 13,543

 13,653

 13,484

 13,565

 13,469

 13,558

 13,550

 13,536

STORAGE

+37

+36

+177

-147

-228

-103

+169

-30

-7

+15

+103

-52

-66

+346

+82

+60

+30

-82

-333

+228

-346

+30

-37

+110

-169

+81

-96

+89

-8

-14

CHANGE

1,892

1,895

1,890

1,830

1,841

1,881

1,875

1,871

1,879

1,807

1,844

1,849

1,849

1,924

1,901

1,895

1,882

1,854

1,847

1,295

1,145

1,267

1,236

1,311

1,232

1,455

1,210

1,314

1,251

1,248

INFLOW

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

 110

POWER

 301

 301

 302

 302

 300

 295

 298

 299

 300

 300

 300

 302

 301

 303

 301

 301

 302

 301

 303

 298

 299

 294

 294

 296

 296

 296

 295

 296

 296

 296

SPILL

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

 44

OUTLETS

 3

 5

 4

 5

 6

 5

 5

 1

 6

 5

 3

 3

 8

 3

 4

 5

 4

 6

 3

 5

 3

 3

 3

 4

 3

 3

 2

 5

 5

 2

C.F.S.

 .14

 .23

 .19

 .21

 .26

 .25

 .29

 .06

 .27

 .25

 .14

 .12

 .37

 .12

 .20

 .25

 .16

 .26

 .13

 .22

 .13

 .13

 .12

 .20

 .12

 .09

 .11

 .23

 .24

 .10

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2017 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 4, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -125 49,470 3,300 1,320 8,968 122 5.59

ACRE-FEET -125 98,124 6,546 2,618 17,788 242

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

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 6,546

TOTAL RIVER 26,952 98,007

 13,661

 71,055

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 1,415

 1,417

 1,341

 1,443

 1,496

 1,479

 1,333

 1,432

 1,423

 1,340

 1,335

 1,416

 1,419

 1,290

 1,401

 1,405

 1,407

 1,434

 1,555

 723

 863

 801

 804

 802

 864

 961

 807

 814

 800

 803

 35,823

 71,055

Table 6