alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 122.50

 123.74

 123.42

 122.20

 122.87

 122.56

 122.48

 122.02

 122.47

 123.14

 123.18

 123.24

 123.28

 123.29

 122.21

 122.43

 122.20

 122.05

 121.82

 122.73

 123.10

 122.95

 122.59

 123.06

 123.04

 123.40

 123.02

 122.65

 122.29

 122.99

 122.56

 7,566

 8,139

 7,988

 7,431

 7,733

 7,593

 7,557

 7,350

 7,553

 7,857

 7,876

 7,904

 7,923

 7,927

 7,436

 7,535

 7,431

 7,364

 7,265

 7,670

 7,838

 7,769

 7,607

 7,819

 7,810

 7,979

 7,800

 7,634

 7,472

 7,787

 7,593

STORAGE

-343

+573

-151

-557

+302

-140

-36

-207

+203

+304

+19

+28

+19

+4

-491

+99

-104

-67

-99

+405

+168

-69

-162

+212

-9

+169

-179

-166

-162

+315

-194

CHANGE

1,351

1,809

1,419

1,213

1,690

1,458

1,500

1,415

1,630

1,673

1,548

1,558

1,538

1,540

1,293

1,597

1,470

1,539

1,470

1,718

1,631

1,520

1,470

1,654

1,532

1,637

1,428

1,424

1,440

1,691

1,434

INFLOW

 1,436

 1,443

 1,435

 1,431

 1,458

 1,449

 1,435

 1,429

 1,438

 1,430

 1,448

 1,454

 1,438

 666

 208

 0

 710

 1,493

 1,440

 1,428

 1,456

 1,459

 1,459

 1,457

 1,447

 1,360

 1,434

 1,428

 1,436

 1,442

 1,442

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 782

 1,243

 1,460

 732

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 102

 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

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 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

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2002 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 19, 2002

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -316 47,290 40,489 4,319 1,860 0

ACRE-FEET -316 93,800 80,310 8,567 3,689 0

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 80,310

SPILL 8,567

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,553

 3,689

 7,909

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 28

 17

 0

 3

 20

 20

 23

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 30

 27

 20

 20

 20

 26

 30

 36

 33

 30

 30

 30

 24

 20

 26

 30

 30

 783

 1,553

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 94,119

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

 122.20

 122.28

 122.16

 122.37

 122.40

 122.34

 122.09

 121.98

 122.27

 122.64

 123.11

 123.55

 123.70

 123.92

 122.53

 121.81

 121.48

 121.44

 120.99

 122.82

 122.40

 122.16

 122.44

 122.91

 122.79

 123.40

 123.40

 123.00

 123.19

 122.54

 7,431

 7,467

 7,413

 7,508

 7,521

 7,494

 7,382

 7,333

 7,463

 7,629

 7,843

 8,050

 8,120

 8,223

 7,580

 7,261

 7,123

 7,106

 6,917

 7,710

 7,521

 7,413

 7,539

 7,751

 7,697

 7,979

 7,979

 7,791

 7,880

 7,584

STORAGE

+22

+36

-54

+95

+13

-27

-112

-49

+130

+166

+214

+207

+70

+103

-643

-319

-138

-17

-189

+793

-189

-108

+126

+212

-54

+282

+0

-188

+89

-296

CHANGE

1,140

1,143

1,098

1,170

1,125

1,113

1,074

1,100

1,196

1,206

1,231

1,234

1,161

1,182

1,422

1,627

1,706

1,762

1,674

2,162

1,655

1,716

1,831

1,883

1,746

1,917

2,495

2,437

2,517

2,308

INFLOW

 1,033

 1,029

 1,029

 1,026

 1,020

 1,025

 1,028

 1,024

 1,028

 1,020

 1,022

 1,030

 1,026

 1,029

 1,645

 1,686

 1,674

 1,669

 1,667

 1,672

 1,683

 1,675

 1,671

 1,680

 1,676

 1,677

 2,397

 2,437

 2,282

 2,357

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

 95

 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

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 1

 2

 2

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 0

 0

 1

 1

 2

 3

 3

 0

 0

 2

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2010 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 1, 2010

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +175 47,031 43,917 95 1,800 39

ACRE-FEET +175 93,286 87,109 188 3,570 77

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 87,109

SPILL 188

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 2,162

 3,570

 7,409

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 35

 35

 35

 35

 37

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 28

 7

 35

 35

 35

 35

 35

 35

 35

 35

 38

 1,090

 2,162

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 93,029
(Case No. 00169

#### In Re Application of Ann Van Schaik.

*Opinion filed May 31, 1979.*

Per Curiam.

*1067This claim, arising out of the death of a policeman killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiary pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 48, Sec. 281, *et seq., 1977*

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General, a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer, and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing before the full Court on April 18,1979, the Court finds as follows:

1. That the Claimant, Ann Van Schaik, is the wife of the decedent, and in the absence of a designated beneficiary, Section 3(a) of the Act provides that any award hereunder shall be paid to the surviving widow.

2. That the decedent, Roger Van Schaik, was a police officer employed by the Chicago Police Department and was engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of Sec.2(e) of the Act, on March 3,1979.

3. That on said date, Officer Van Schaik began his regular duty assignment at 8:00 a.m. He and his partner, William Bosak, were wearing civilian type dress and drove in an unmarked Chicago Police Department vehicle. At approximately 4:16 p.m. on March 3, 1979, the officers made a traffic stop at 1123 West 115th Street in Chicago, Illinois. While both officers were outside of their vehicle, another car drove up and stopped next to the police car. The occupant of this car, later learned to be Kenneth Allen, left his auto and *1068began shooting at the two police officers. Allen, after shooting both officers a number of times, fled the scene and was apprehended shortly thereafter. Officer Van Schaik was pronounced dead at 4:45 p.m. at Roseland Community Hospital. The medical examiner’s certificate of death recites the immediate cause of death as a bullet wound in the brain.

We find, therefore;

> a) that Officer Van Schaik was killed in the line of duty as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act; and

> b) that the proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act, and the claim is therefore compensable thereunder.

It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000 00 be and is hereby awarded to Ann Van Schaik, surviving spouse of the deceased police officer, Roger Van Schaik.
#### Samuel SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. William ROBINOWITZ et al., Appellees.

No. 12303.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 4, 1955.

Decided March 31, 1955.

Mr. Sol M. Alpher, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Louis E. Spiegler, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Herman Miller, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before BAZELON, FAHY and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Only the sellers, in the written real' estate contract involved here, fully performed on the agreed settlement date. Several days thereafter and before the buyer tendered performance, the sellers *623declared the sale off and claimed an amount under the forfeiture provision of the contract. The buyer brought this suit for specific performance and the sellers counterclaimed under the forfeiture provision. Upon trial without jury, the court found, *inter alia,*that the sellers “did not agree to any extension of time for * * * concluding the settlement * * The complaint was dismissed and judgment awarded on the counterclaim. The buyer appeals.

The legal issues were correctly decided on the basis of findings amply supported by the evidence. We do not consider whether the court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the custom and usage in the business of real estate title settlement companies. For even if such refusal was error, it was not prejudicial in the circumstances of this case.

Affirmed.
- BMVIT • IV/L1 (Strategie und Internationales) • Postanschrift: Postfach 20 1, 1000 W ien BOroanschrift: Radetzkystraße 2 , 1030 W ien E-Ma il : 11@bmvit.gv.at Internet: www. bmvit.gv. at (Antwort b itte unter Antohrung der GZ . an die oben angetohrte E-Mail-Adresse) GZ . BMVIT-40 .005/0004-IV/L 1/2015 DVR:0000175

· Paul Gretch

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs U . S . Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S .W. Room 6402 Washington, DC 20590 Paul.gretch@dot.gov

Dear Mr. Gretch , Vienna, 22 April 2015

With reference to the intentions of the designated Austrian carrier MJet GmbH (Note erbal of the Embassy of Austria dated 23 October 2014) according to the provisions of the bilater I air services agreement (Air Services Agreement between the Austrian Federal Government and t e Government of the United States of America , done at Vienna on 16th of March 1989 , as ame ded) to conduct non-scheduled (charter) air services to/from the United States based on fifth , sixther seventh freedom traffic rights and referring to the designation of the said airline the Austri n Civi l Aviation Authority hereby confirms that similar requests submitted by the U.S . carrierswill e treated on the basis of reciprocity. S incerely Yours

Antonia Hatler Deputy Director, Air Transport Affairs Federal Ministry of Transport , Innovation and Technology Civil Aviation Authority
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

 1,008.86

 1,008.77

 1,008.73

 1,008.74

 1,008.69

 1,008.63

 1,008.69

 1,008.66

 1,008.67

 1,008.51

 1,008.33

 1,008.21

 1,008.01

 1,007.82

 1,007.47

 1,007.15

 1,006.73

 1,006.39

 1,005.99

 1,005.63

 1,005.33

 1,004.78

 1,004.08

 1,003.36

 1,002.59

 1,001.78

 1,000.97

 1,000.13

 999.34

 998.50

 1,553.9

 1,553.1

 1,552.7

 1,552.8

 1,552.3

 1,551.7

 1,552.3

 1,552.0

 1,552.1

 1,550.6

 1,548.9

 1,547.8

 1,545.9

 1,544.1

 1,540.8

 1,537.7

 1,533.8

 1,530.6

 1,526.8

 1,523.4

 1,520.6

 1,515.5

 1,508.9

 1,502.2

 1,495.1

 1,487.6

 1,480.1

 1,472.4

 1,465.1

 1,457.4

STORAGE

+0.0

-0.9

-0.4

+0.1

-0.5

-0.6

+0.6

-0.3

+0.1

-1.5

-1.7

-1.1

-1.9

-1.8

-3.3

-3.0

-4.0

-3.2

-3.8

-3.4

-2.8

-5.2

-6.5

-6.7

-7.2

-7.5

-7.5

-7.7

-7.2

-7.7

CHANGE

1,252

1,177

1,253

1,384

1,202

961

833

1,355

1,229

840

868

985

997

1,045

910

801

756

860

771

830

864

965

831

833

902

784

862

804

918

872

INFLOW

 1,215

 1,579

 1,393

 1,305

 1,416

 1,205

 491

 1,481

 1,144

 1,516

 1,658

 1,498

 1,898

 1,858

 2,464

 2,289

 2,706

 2,403

 2,599

 2,414

 2,233

 3,461

 4,041

 4,089

 4,394

 4,548

 4,555

 4,600

 4,473

 4,632

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

SPILL

 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

OUTLET

 37

 28

 52

 31

 25

 43

 55

 18

 37

 89

 71

 61

 55

 92

 113

 37

 46

 70

 70

 118

 49

 100

 88

 123

 114

 18

 78

 101

 98

 112

C.F.S.

 .12

 .09

 .17

 .10

 .08

 .14

 .18

 .06

 .12

 .29

 .23

 .20

 .18

 .30

 .37

 .12

 .15

 .23

 .23

 .39

 .16

 .33

 .29

 .41

 .38

 .06

 .26

 .34

 .33

 .38

INCHES

 .28

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .20

 .00

 .00

 .73

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .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

APRIL 2013 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 10, 2013

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -96.6 28,944 75,558 0 0 2,029 6.69 1.35

ACRE-FEET -96,600 57,410 149,869 0 0 4,025

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 149,869

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 149,869

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.35

JULY 1, 2012 19.54

 1,553.9

Table 13
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

 1,059.58

 1,059.79

 1,061.18

 1,064.45

 1,066.23

 1,066.68

 1,066.92

 1,067.17

 1,067.52

 1,067.84

 1,068.22

 1,068.60

 1,068.94

 1,069.25

 1,069.57

 1,070.25

 1,070.83

 1,070.99

 1,071.07

 1,071.04

 1,070.98

 1,070.83

 1,070.67

 1,070.58

 1,070.54

 1,070.24

 1,070.19

 1,070.16

 1,070.33

 1,070.47

 2,081.9

 2,084.3

 2,100.1

 2,137.5

 2,158.1

 2,163.3

 2,166.1

 2,169.0

 2,173.1

 2,176.8

 2,181.2

 2,185.7

 2,189.6

 2,193.3

 2,197.0

 2,205.0

 2,211.8

 2,213.7

 2,214.6

 2,214.3

 2,213.6

 2,211.8

 2,209.9

 2,208.9

 2,208.4

 2,204.9

 2,204.3

 2,203.9

 2,205.9

 2,207.6

STORAGE

+6.9

+2.4

+15.8

+37.5

+20.6

+5.2

+2.8

+2.9

+4.1

+3.7

+4.4

+4.4

+4.0

+3.6

+3.7

+8.0

+6.8

+1.9

+0.9

-0.4

-0.7

-1.8

-1.9

-1.1

-0.5

-3.5

-0.6

-0.4

+2.0

+1.6

CHANGE

5,381

4,156

10,071

19,785

12,074

6,927

5,714

5,766

5,290

5,096

5,443

5,272

5,252

5,727

5,649

7,428

7,056

5,670

5,266

5,055

5,168

5,153

4,790

4,675

4,726

4,957

6,126

6,897

6,901

7,222

INFLOW

 1,845

 2,912

 2,067

 876

 1,557

 3,230

 2,352

 4,263

 3,192

 3,189

 3,187

 3,013

 3,225

 3,389

 3,722

 3,366

 3,578

 4,254

 4,391

 4,766

 5,471

 5,973

 5,727

 5,197

 1,667

 4,445

 4,445

 5,554

 5,814

 6,309

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 467

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3,250

 2,209

 1,920

 1,490

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,055

 1,914

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 411

 347

 395

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 51

 44

 37

 19

 150

 11

 45

 38

 45

 30

 23

 23

 26

 42

 38

 42

 42

 57

 53

 72

 53

 68

 11

 11

 46

 80

 57

 30

 80

 84

C.F.S.

 .14

 .12

 .10

 .05

 .40

 .03

 .12

 .10

 .12

 .08

 .06

 .06

 .07

 .11

 .10

 .11

 .11

 .15

 .14

 .19

 .14

 .18

 .03

 .03

 .12

 .21

 .15

 .08

 .21

 .22

INCHES

 1.26

 .00

 1.16

 2.02

 1.56

 .21

 .00

 .33

 .00

 .05

 .45

 .30

 .00

 .00

 .18

 .05

 .63

 .01

 .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 2006 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 9, 2006

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +132.3 194,693 112,976 9,336 4,122 1,408 3.73 8.21

ACRE-FEET +132,300 386,174 224,088 18,518 8,176 2,793

COMMENTS:

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 224,088

SPILL 18,518

OUTLET

TOTAL

 8,176

 250,782

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 8.21

JULY 1, 2005 40.03

 2,075.0

Table 13
Case 19-72343-FJS Doc 32 Filed 08/16/19 Entered 08/16/19 14:17:53 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6366

TOMMY HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PIGGLY WIGGLY, INCORPORATED; CITY OF GREENWOOD; LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MENTAL HEALTH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-04-23022-TLW) Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purposes of this appeal, we assume the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Tommy Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdi ctional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on December 20, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on February, 28, 2005. * Because Harris failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

OROVER *ELLERS 

*n-o*NFI GCNLRAL 

Honorable Urew S. Davis 

county Attorney 

San Augustbe C0Unt.y 

Sao Augustfae, TeutS 

Dear Sir: Opinion Ho. O-6445 

01s 1700-a-1, which deals with 

lnseot and plant disease app 

Velmon's A5tIOtat8 

section 9 of cha 

second Called Se 

Act is found in 

13Sa-1. This 

lations and i 

the lslportatf 

and plant disea 

41st Legislature, 

portion or this 

tatutes, Artiole 

r0r quarantine regund shrubs to prevent 

erous inaeat pests 

13 0r tha 0dginal 

rticle 1700-a-l) was amended 

, Chapter 384, and as amended 

for the destruction of trees or rruits, or f'or the 

cleaning of orahnrds or treatment of orchards, or 
Donorable Drew S. Davis, iage 2 

methods of storage, or shall provide ror the prevention of the entry into any pest-free zone of 

any plants, plant produots, things, or substanaes 

found to be dangerous to the a?:rloultural and 

horticultural interests or such pest-free so-, 

or shall provide for the maintenanoe or a hoe)- 

free period in which certain fruits are not to be 

allowed to be ripened, or shall provide for any 

speairio treatment of a grove or orahard, any person or persona row3 guilty or selllni:, carrying, 

or transporting such klants or plant produots from 

a quarantined area or areas deolared lofested or 

into an area deolared to be a pest-rree zone, as 

the oase may be, or V&O shall mnlntain any @ipening fruit during the host-rree period on any tree 

declared to be a nuisanoe in suoh quarantine order, or fails or refuses to admlnlster the treatment provided for, including speolrla methods or 

spraying, removing diseased parts, removing and 

aestroylng fallen or oulled fruits, or ~remoring 

such needs or plants as may be hosts or oarrlers 

of inseot pests or plant diseases. or railing to 

store produots in mahner as may be required, shall 

be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon oonvlotlon shall be fined in any sum not to exoeed 

One Hundred Dollars ($lOO), and eaoh thing eOld 

or transported, an3 eaoh aot in violation hereof, 

shall be oonsldered a separate orrenae; and provlde~a further that any person violating any of the 

provisions of this Act may be proseouted theref’or 

in any county of this State where aamh violation 

OCOurB.” (Underscoring oure) 

v:ebster*s International ,Dlotfonary, 2nd Edition, 

deslenates a sweet potato MS a. plant. It ia our opinion 

that a sweet potato may be either a plant or plant product 

depending as to when or how u.sed. rcheb the potato is on the 

vine it is a plant 1 w~hen severed from the vine It Is than a 

plant produot. 

‘#a are further of the opinion that an indictment 

charging violation of this statute should contain two oounte: 

T?“;s 

charging sweet potato to be a plant and the other that 

a plant product. 
Honorable Urew 30 Davis, Fags 3 

t:'e are, tlrrrefore, of the opinion that .,.he provisions or V.A.P.O., Article 1700-a-1 does apply to sweet potatoes infeoted with weevils. 

!;‘e believe that the enclosed ooples of’ our Opinion8 

Nos. O-5914 and O-5793 will be of help to you. 

Yours very truly 

m : mp 

Emll.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Alaska Environmental Studies Program

http://www.boem.gov/akstudies/

Proposed Study for FY 2016

Formatting Guidance: We recommend study profiles be less than 2 pages. Please do 

not try to make this a detailed scope of work. If the study is selected for further 

consideration, BOEM will prepare a more detailed scope of work. Please provide the 

following categories of information.

Region: Sample Region

Planning Area(s): All

Title: Sample Title and Profile to Show Formatting

BOEM Information Need(s) to be Addressed: Provide brief and conclusive 

reason(s) why BOEM needs the information. For example, identify how the study 

relates to analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and/or specific BOEM 

decision(s), such as formulation of a mitigation measure. Please be as specific as 

possible.

Period of Performance: FY 2016-20XX

Description:

Background: Please provide 1 to 2 paragraphs on relevant issues. Explain what 

information is required and provide pertinent background. Include details about 

whether this study ties in with other efforts, and if so, how. Include a description of the 

current status of information. That is, what is the level of adequacy of existing 

information, does any exist, does it need to be more geographically specific?

Objectives: Clearly and succinctly state the objective(s) of the study. Explain what 

hypothesis will be tested or what questions will be answered by this study. We 

encourage the use of lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) for multiple, related objectives.

Methods: Provide brief detail on what information, techniques or methods are available 

that could be used. Explain how the objectives of the study will be accomplished.

Date information is required: Provide dates when products would be most useful and 

for what purpose, such as “Final report is needed by September 2019 to support NEPA 

analysis for anticipated lease sales under the next five-year program.” If the study 

includes products in addition to the scientific report (e.g. database, model, 

bibliography), explain in this section.

* Please keep in mind that studies proposed for our consideration must address specific 

BOEM mission and decision needs. For further information, see the Alaska Annual 

Studies Plan FY 2014, posted at the website listed above.