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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5562 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5562

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Dionne 
                Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2020

  Mr. Veasey (for himself, Ms. Granger, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Taylor, Mr. 
Ratcliffe, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Brady, Mr. Green 
  of Texas, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. 
  Weber of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Flores, Ms. 
 Jackson Lee, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Roy, Mr. Olson, 
Mr. Hurd of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Williams, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cloud, 
 Mr. Cuellar, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Carter of 
Texas, Mr. Allred, Mr. Vela, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Babin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Dionne 
                Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DIONNE PHILLIPS BAGSBY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dionne Phillips Bagsby Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dionne 
Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 89-6591.

#### Kennedy *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Helen M. Moloney, Respondent-Appellant, against Fire Commissioner of Inwood Fire District, Nassau County, Appellant-Respondent.

Proceeding under section 205 of the General Municipal Law. Order of the County Court of Nassau County modified on the law and facts by striking therefrom the figure “ $666.17 ”, directed to be paid by the Fire Commissioner, etc., to the petitioner, and inserting in place thereof the figure “$28.17.” As thus modified, the order is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The total amount due to the petitioner or her decedent was $2,115, against which payments have been made totaling $2,086.83, leaving a balance due of $28.17. The decedent was entitled to the payments for fifty weeks of $25 a week, aggregating $1,250, under subdivision Third of section 205 of the General Municipal Law, for the period from July 31, 1944 (day of accident), to July 17, 1945, and to $615 for the period from July 17, 1945, to the date of his death on April 27, 1946, being $15 a week for a period of forty-one weeks, under the "Provided”'paragraph of subdivision Second of section 205. He was also entitled under that same “ Provided ” paragraph to $25 a month for the two children for a period of ten months, a total of $250, which made a grand total of $2,115. In making these computations the petitioner was entitled to a full week in one instance, and a full month in another, since the moneys, being for prospective support, were due at the beginning and not at the end of the week or month; hence a payment for the entire week or month was due rather than a mere fraction thereof of the last week or month. Acceptance of contrary views in respect of the meaning of the statute, advanced by the petitioner, would involve judicial legislation. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GANTOS, INC. AS OF, AND FOR THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED, JANUARY 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                       577
<INVENTORY>                                     27,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,770
<PP&E>                                          63,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,681
<BONDS>                                         37,651
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,653
<SALES>                                        149,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,625
<CGS>                                          124,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (220)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.68)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Noble Consolidated Industries Corp (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  November
      24, 2009
            /s/
      Mark KerseyMark
      KerseyChief
      Financial and Accounting Officer
### Part 2—Unlawful Practices
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

155)IV-E-28 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:56 PM Sheet 155 of 242 
P.2 

% 

MAR I 

UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

ft-Ql-2-± 

OFFIC€OF „ ~ 

AR ANO RAOtATiOPr 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Conference Call With API Regarding FMEA 

Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manage 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Public Docket A-87-11 

Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development an 

r 2>A**^A*~«^ 

Branch 

Charles L. Gray 

Emission Contro 

, Jr., Director / /7/--**1 // ^ 

1 Technology DivieionT / y ^ 

During their January 25, 1988 meeting with EPA in Ann 

Arbor, Michigan, representatives of the American Petroleum 

Institute (API) mentioned that under contract they were 

conducting a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for 

onboard systems. Since EPA was at that time preparing a 

contract Scope of Work regarding a vehicle fuel system 

comparative risk assessment, on January 28, 1988, API was 

contacted to seek their input on the format, methodology and 

analytical techniques being used in their FMEA work. 

Subsequently, a conference call was held at 3 p.m. on February 

2, 1988 among representatives of EPA, API, and API's contractor 

ICF Technology Incorporated. A list of those individuals 

participating in the call is attached. 

As mentioned above, the discussions focused on the format, 

methodology and analytical techniques used in API's FMEA work. 

The general approach and preliminary results of API's FMEA were 

also discussed from a technical viewpoint. API plans to 

provide a copy of their FMEA as comments to the docket when 

complete. 

Attachment 
P.3 

FMEA Conference Call Participants 

*• February 2, 1988 

EPA API ICF 

Charles Gray Ed Crockett David Moore 

Chet France Jack Freeman Phil Collier 

John Anderson George Musser 

Glenn Passavant Bill Koehl
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

 457

 460

 472

 507

 473

 451

 511

 539

 502

 475

 606

 412

 422

 442

 426

 536

 523

 620

 823

 989

 1,316

 1,058

 649

 539

 471

 506

 488

 507

 506

 505

 322

 321

 320

 321

 311

 307

 306

 302

 305

 309

 322

 296

 307

 309

 328

 335

 333

 345

 348

 361

 369

 343

 323

 316

 322

 331

 328

 346

 332

 330

 368

 365

 368

 375

 358

 345

 366

 385

 393

 376

 401

 343

 346

 365

 367

 399

 396

 426

 469

 509

 616

 551

 456

 422

 402

 407

 388

 397

 386

 404

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2022 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 2, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 4,981

 5,041

 5,103

 5,173

 5,223

 5,239

 5,255

 5,252

 5,251

 5,221

 5,215

 5,181

 5,157

 5,154

 5,153

 5,187

 5,215

 5,266

 5,377

 5,541

 5,791

 5,957

 6,020

 6,066

 6,067

 6,131

 6,173

 6,205

 6,224

 6,229

 356

 360

 365

 370

 373

 374

 375

 375

 375

 373

 373

 370

 368

 368

 368

 371

 373

 376

 384

 396

 414

 426

 430

 433

 433

 438

 441

 443

 445

 445

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6750
In Re: SHAWN RANDALL NORBREY, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-1803-AM) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 11, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Randall Norbrey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Shawn Randall Norbrey has filed a motion for a writ of prohibition seeking to have this court reverse his robbery conviction. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Because Norbrey has filed an appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2000), and because the instant motion is tantamount to a second or successive § 2254 petition, for which he must obtain authorization from this court to file, see 28 U.S.C.A. §2244 (West Supp. 2000), Norbrey has failed to show that he is entitled to such extraordinary relief. Accordingly, although we grant Norbrey leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions3 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
###### Editorial Note on Part 478

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 478 appear by T.D. ATF-411, 64 FR 17291, Apr. 9, 1999, T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3750, Jan. 24, 2003, and ATF-11F, 73 FR 57240, Oct. 2, 2008.

#### § 478.101 Record of transactions.

Every licensee shall maintain firearms and armor piercing ammunition records in such form and manner as is prescribed by subpart H of this part.

[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10498, Mar. 31, 1988]
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

 519.91

 520.56

 521.26

 522.12

 522.81

 523.70

 524.59

 525.27

 525.76

 526.04

 526.54

 526.92

 527.61

 528.26

 528.78

 529.39

 529.89

 530.64

 530.95

 531.37

 531.71

 532.07

 532.54

 532.84

 533.18

 533.57

 534.04

 534.36

 534.78

 535.40

 538.27

 279.1

 281.3

 283.7

 286.7

 289.1

 292.2

 295.4

 297.8

 299.5

 300.5

 302.3

 303.7

 306.2

 308.6

 310.5

 312.7

 314.5

 317.3

 318.4

 320.0

 321.3

 322.6

 324.3

 325.5

 326.7

 328.2

 330.0

 331.2

 332.8

 335.1

 346.2

STORAGE

+3.0

+2.2

+2.4

+3.0

+2.4

+3.1

+3.1

+2.4

+1.7

+1.0

+1.8

+1.4

+2.5

+2.4

+1.9

+2.2

+1.8

+2.8

+1.1

+1.6

+1.3

+1.3

+1.8

+1.1

+1.3

+1.5

+1.8

+1.2

+1.6

+2.4

+11.0

CHANGE

1,625

1,254

1,342

1,633

1,345

1,706

1,718

1,353

1,012

645

1,030

813

1,384

1,316

1,082

1,252

1,052

1,520

705

911

768

803

1,006

687

764

864

1,018

736

928

1,317

5,697

INFLOW

 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

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

 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

 0

FRIANT-KERN

 3

 6

 3

 7

 8

 8

 9

 12

 8

 17

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 4

 5

 2

 10

 8

 1

 2

 1

 4

 6

 5

 5

 7

 5

C.F.S.

 .03

 .05

 .03

 .06

 .07

 .07

 .08

 .10

 .07

 .15

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .03

 .04

 .02

 .08

 .07

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .03

 .05

 .04

 .04

 .06

 .04

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .33

 .56

 .11

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .03

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .03

 .49

 .20

 .24

 1.35

 .48

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2004 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: January 13, 2005

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +70.1 39,286 0 0 0 153 1.32 3.84

ACRE-FEET +70,114 77,924 0 0 0 303

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 0

 0 7,504

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2004 TO DATE = 8.33

 276.1

 7,504 3.84

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 121

 121

 121

 122

 122

 122

 122

 122

 122

 123

 123

 123

 124

 124

 124

 124

 124

 124

 124

 125

 122

 120

 120

 120

 120

 120

 120

 120

 121

 121

 122

RIVER

 3,783

 7,504

RIVER

Table 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID A. SALASKY

,

Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee. §
§ No. 482, 2022
§
§ Court Below

– Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
§
§ Cr. ID No. 1109012491 (N)
§
§
§

Submitted: July 12 , 2023

Decided: September 26 , 2023

Before TRAYNOR

, LEGROW

, and GRIFFITHS

, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief

, the State’s motion to

affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Cour that:

(1) In September 2013, t he appellant, David Salasky, pleaded guilty but

mentally ill to two counts of first

- degree murder

, four counts of possession of a

deadly weapon du ring the commission of a felony, and related offenses. In January

2014, the Superior Court sentenced Salasky to two life sentences plus a term of

years

.

(2) In October 2017, Salasky filed a motion for postconviction relief under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 seeking to set aside his guilty plea . The Superior

Court denied the motion in February 2018 . Although the motion was untimely, the2

Superior Court nevertheless considered its merits and found, among other things,

that Salasky’s plea was made knowingly and voluntarily

. Salasky did not appeal.

Between March 2019 and April 2022, Salasky filed four more motions seeking to

set aside his guilty plea, all of which were denied.

(3) O n November 28, 2022, Salasky filed another motion to set aside his

guilty plea. The Superior Court denied it, and this appeal followed. A motion to set

aside a guilty plea after the Superior Court has imposed a sentence must be made

under Rule 61. 1 The motion “constitutes a collateral attack against the conviction[s]

and is subject to the requirements of Rule 61, including its bars of procedural

default.” 2 T he Superior Court therefore properly denied Salasky’s motion , which

was procedurally barre d. 3

1 Del. Super. Crim. R. 32(d).

2 Blackwell v. State , 736 A.2d 971, 972

– 73 (Del. 1999).

3 Del . Super. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial and pleads with particularity (i) new evidence of actual innocence or (ii) that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applies to the movant’s case and rende rs the conviction invalid). After the State filed its motion to affirm, Salasky filed a “motion for order to supplement the record on appeal,” in which he asks the Court to direct hi s trial counsel to turn over to him

medical records that he believes rema in in counsel’s possession and are relevant to his arguments on appeal. Because Salasky’s motion to set aside his guilty plea was procedurally barred, these

records cannot advance his cause , and the motion is DENIED.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow

Justice
###### Editorial Note on Part 44

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

#### § 44.263 To commercial vessels and aircraft for consumption as supplies.

Where cigars are withdrawn from a customs warehouse for delivery to a vessel or aircraft entitled to receive such articles for consumption as supplies beyond the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws of the United States, the customs warehouse proprietor making shipment shall file two copies of the notice of removal, Form 5200.14, with the district director of customs at the port where the shipment is to be laden in sufficient time to permit delivery of the two copies of the notice of removal to the customs officer who will inspect the shipment and supervise its lading. After inspection and lading of the shipment the customs officer shall note on the copies of the notice of removal any discrepancy between the shipment inspected and laden under his supervision and that described on the notice of removal or any limitation on the quantity to be laden; complete and sign the certificate of inspection and lading; and return both copies of the notice of removal to the district director of customs. The district director of customs shall execute the certificate of clearance on both copies of the notice of removal, retain one copy for his records, and forward the other copy to the customs warehouse proprietor making the shipment for filing with the appropriate TTB officer. Where the vessel or aircraft does not clear from the port at which the shipment is laden, the customs officer supervising the lading of the shipment shall require the person on board the vessel or aircraft authorized to receive the shipment to execute the certificate of receipt on both copies of the notice of removal to indicate the trade or activity in which the vessel or aircraft is engaged.

[T.D. 6961, 33 FR 9494, June 28, 1968. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, as amended by T.D. ATF-421, 64 FR 71926, Dec. 22, 1999]
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

 834.78

 834.48

 834.19

 833.62

 832.87

 832.38

 831.93

 831.76

 831.25

 830.79

 830.26

 829.54

 828.98

 828.58

 828.16

 827.65

 827.31

 827.05

 826.56

 825.93

 825.39

 824.98

 824.74

 824.14

 823.51

 822.93

 822.37

 821.82

 821.24

 820.81

 820.38

 400.1

 398.9

 397.7

 395.4

 392.4

 390.4

 388.6

 387.9

 385.9

 384.0

 381.9

 379.1

 376.8

 375.3

 373.6

 371.6

 370.3

 369.3

 367.4

 364.9

 362.9

 361.3

 360.4

 358.1

 355.7

 353.5

 351.3

 349.3

 347.1

 345.5

 343.9

STORAGE

-1.1

-1.2

-1.2

-2.3

-3.0

-2.0

-1.8

-0.7

-2.0

-1.8

-2.1

-2.9

-2.2

-1.6

-1.7

-2.0

-1.3

-1.0

-1.9

-2.4

-2.1

-1.6

-0.9

-2.3

-2.4

-2.2

-2.1

-2.1

-2.2

-1.6

-1.6

CHANGE

551

506

492

312

282

292

200

308

306

340

279

262

288

313

355

291

352

349

284

385

306

294

322

298

289

275

307

326

429

334

341

INFLOW

 1,061

 1,060

 1,043

 1,424

 1,748

 1,243

 1,070

 607

 1,290

 1,234

 1,321

 1,655

 1,362

 1,054

 1,139

 1,245

 968

 806

 1,203

 1,571

 1,310

 1,043

 733

 1,406

 1,444

 1,335

 1,323

 1,317

 1,472

 1,088

 1,091

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

 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

OUTLET

 66

 63

 45

 55

 64

 44

 43

 44

 45

 32

 21

 45

 42

 51

 48

 51

 53

 55

 40

 45

 45

 48

 52

 51

 55

 52

 51

 55

 56

 58

 59

C.F.S.

 .50

 .48

 .34

 .42

 .49

 .34

 .33

 .34

 .35

 .25

 .16

 .35

 .33

 .40

 .38

 .40

 .42

 .44

 .32

 .36

 .36

 .39

 .42

 .41

 .45

 .42

 .42

 .45

 .46

 .48

 .49

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .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

JULY 2015 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 6, 2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -57.3 10,268 37,666 0 0 1,534 12.15 .00

ACRE-FEET -57,300 20,367 74,711 0 0 3,043

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 74,711

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 74,711

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2015 .00

 401.3

Table 13