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

 560.36

 561.37

 561.44

 560.58

 559.02

 557.39

 556.12

 555.09

 554.04

 552.99

 552.14

 551.59

 551.02

 550.72

 550.66

 550.57

 550.53

 550.56

 550.60

 550.65

 550.61

 550.55

 550.48

 550.56

 550.77

 550.86

 550.86

 550.62

 550.57

 550.65

 550.77

 438.1

 442.6

 442.9

 439.1

 432.1

 425.0

 419.5

 415.0

 410.5

 406.0

 402.4

 400.1

 397.7

 396.5

 396.2

 395.8

 395.7

 395.8

 396.0

 396.2

 396.0

 395.7

 395.5

 395.8

 396.7

 397.0

 397.0

 396.0

 395.8

 396.2

 396.7

STORAGE

+0.0

+4.5

+0.3

-3.8

-6.9

-7.2

-5.5

-4.4

-4.5

-4.5

-3.6

-2.3

-2.4

-1.3

-0.3

-0.4

-0.2

+0.1

+0.2

+0.2

-0.2

-0.3

-0.3

+0.3

+0.9

+0.4

+0.0

-1.0

-0.2

+0.3

+0.5

CHANGE

4,049

6,331

4,197

2,674

2,520

2,392

2,338

2,255

2,219

2,224

2,094

2,111

2,069

2,063

2,159

2,114

2,212

2,364

2,393

2,440

2,291

2,278

2,300

2,254

2,244

2,030

1,793

1,301

1,691

1,895

1,932

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 169

 195

 195

 218

 229

 238

 242

 242

 216

 230

 356

 439

 439

 372

 112

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

 174

 297

 296

 387

 451

 397

 323

 295

 295

 295

 326

 349

 383

 400

 430

 452

 568

 650

 650

 650

 851

FRIANT-KERN

 10

 42

 13

 6

 0

 6

 1

 1

 4

 4

 4

 3

 7

 8

 5

 1

 0

 1

 5

 7

 5

 4

 9

 0

 0

 7

 0

 18

 7

 5

 16

C.F.S.

 .07

 .29

 .09

 .04

 .00

 .04

 .01

 .01

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .02

 .05

 .06

 .04

 .01

 .00

 .01

 .04

 .05

 .04

 .03

 .07

 .00

 .00

 .05

 .00

 .13

 .05

 .04

 .12

INCHES

 1.14

 .54

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .05

 .02

 .04

 .43

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2011 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 1, 2011

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -41.4 75,227 3,892 8,919 0 199 1.45 2.26

ACRE-FEET -41,374 149,213 7,720 17,691 0 395

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 17,691

 7,720 190,192

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2010 TO DATE = 15.26

 438.0

 164,781 2.26

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 4,017

 4,021

 4,026

 4,600

 6,006

 5,993

 5,124

 4,497

 4,487

 4,477

 3,731

 2,980

 2,976

 2,301

 1,830

 1,906

 1,805

 1,809

 1,814

 1,815

 1,815

 1,814

 1,814

 1,443

 1,155

 1,151

 869

 700

 700

 700

 700

RIVER

 83,076

 164,781

RIVER
### Metals Extrapolation Information
David A Klarich David A Klarich to: David Ogulei 03/12/2012 09:18 AM
History: This message has been replied to.

2 attachments

Metals Extrapolation 2008 Testing Sig Mod.xls Metals Extrapolation Equation.pdf



### David,

I have attached the page from the Metals Performance Test Plan that explains the metals extrapolation methodology and shows the equations used for calculating the extrapolated feedrates for the three metals groups. As we had discussed during the conference call on Thursday, this methodology was given to us from USEPA Region 5.

Also attached is the Excel spreadsheet that was used to calculate the extrapolated metals feedrates utilizing the above mentioned methodology.

If you should have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Dave

Dave Klarich Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. # 7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, IL 62201 618-271-2804, X120 office 618-271-9704 fax david.klarich@veoliaes.com http://www.veoliaes.com/

Service first. Safety always.

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review , use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete same from all computers.
### §1130b. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) Centers for international business education

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2009 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the five succeeding fiscal years to carry out the provisions of section 1130–1 of this title.

#### (b) Education and training programs

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2009, and such sums as may be necessary for the five succeeding fiscal years, to carry out the provisions of section 1130a of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title VI, §614, formerly §613, as added Pub. L. 96–374, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1469; amended Pub. L. 99–498, title VI, §612, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1519; renumbered §614 and amended Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §§6261(1), 6262, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1520, 1523; Pub. L. 101–600, §7, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3046; Pub. L. 102–325, title VI, §601, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 733; Pub. L. 105–244, title VI, §602(c), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1783; Pub. L. 110–315, title VI, §611(c), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3339.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–315, §611(c)(1), substituted "such sums as may be necessary" for "$11,000,000", "2009" for "1999", and "five" for "4".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–315, §611(c)(2), substituted "such sums as may be necessary" for "$7,000,000", "2009" for "1999", and "five" for "4".

1998—Pub. L. 105–244 substituted "1999" for "1993" in subsecs. (a) and (b).

1992—Pub. L. 102–325 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows:

"(a) There are authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000 for the fiscal year 1988 and for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years to carry out the provisions of section 1130–1 of this title.

"(b) There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1987, and such sums as may be necessary for the 4 succeeding fiscal years, to carry out the provisions of section 1130a of this title."

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–600 substituted "$7,500,000" for "$5,000,000" and "4 succeeding" for "3 succeeding".

1988—Pub. L. 100–418, §6262, amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1987, and such sums as may be necessary for the 4 succeeding fiscal years."

1986—Pub. L. 99–498 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000 for fiscal year 1981 and for each of the succeeding fiscal years ending prior to October 1, 1985, to carry out the provisions of this part."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–244 effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–325 effective Oct. 1, 1992, see section 2 of Pub. L. 102–325, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.
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

 1,901.04

 1,900.85

 1,900.86

 1,900.73

 1,900.73

 1,900.76

 1,900.84

 1,900.91

 1,900.88

 1,900.95

 1,900.99

 1,900.54

 1,900.70

 1,900.74

 1,900.91

 1,900.86

 1,901.08

 1,900.81

 1,900.82

 1,900.96

 1,901.09

 1,900.84

 1,900.95

 1,901.17

 1,901.14

 1,901.43

 1,900.56

 1,900.63

 1,900.80

 1,900.89

 13,941

 13,801

 13,808

 13,712

 13,712

 13,734

 13,793

 13,845

 13,823

 13,874

 13,904

 13,572

 13,690

 13,720

 13,845

 13,808

 13,971

 13,771

 13,779

 13,882

 13,978

 13,793

 13,874

 14,038

 14,016

 14,233

 13,587

 13,639

 13,764

 13,830

STORAGE

+118

-140

+7

-96

+0

+22

+59

+52

-22

+51

+30

-332

+118

+30

+125

-37

+163

-200

+8

+103

+96

-185

+81

+164

-22

+217

-646

+52

+125

+66

CHANGE

881

815

888

827

894

328

464

1,027

864

339

329

382

677

574

692

632

402

411

632

558

367

449

654

401

307

437

521

344

385

354

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 150

 152

 150

 160

 151

 152

 154

 158

 146

 145

 148

 147

 145

 148

 149

 150

 154

 154

 150

 150

 154

 154

 150

 153

 153

 154

 153

 150

 153

 154

SPILL

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

OUTLETS

 3

 1

 0

 2

 1

 1

 0

 2

 1

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

C.F.S.

 .12

 .05

 .01

 .09

 .04

 .03

 .01

 .07

 .06

 .02

 .06

 .03

 .01

 .00

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .04

 .03

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .02

 .01

 .03

 .02

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2012 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 3, 2012

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +7 16,835 2,400 2,400 4,541 18 .91

ACRE-FEET +7 33,392 4,760 4,760 9,007 36

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

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

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,760

TOTAL RIVER 18,527 33,352

 13,823

 14,825

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 509

 573

 574

 553

 582

 4

 120

 681

 568

 8

 5

 241

 313

 251

 319

 341

 5

 198

 318

 196

 4

 227

 303

 5

 5

 14

 534

 8

 8

 7

 7,474

 14,825
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MICRO BIO-MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

                                             /s/  Charles Smith
                                                  -------------
                                                  Charles Smith, CEO, CFO

Dated: August 10, 2004
#### Mary Clarissa Almind, Appellant, v. Sea Beach Railway Company, Respondent.

Motion denied, without costs. Present—Jenks, P. J.,Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ.
#### Evelyn Queen *v.*Nancy Gagliola et al.

*Andrew D. Sabetta,*for the plaintiff.

*William F. Gallagher,*for the defendants.

Argued October 6

decided October 6, 1970

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
#### William Kneapler, Appellant, v. Samuel Braufman, Doing Business under the Name of Gold Medal Coffee and Tea Co-mpany, et al., Respondents.

Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

#### § 28.94 Containers.

Distilled spirits authorized to be withdrawn without payment of tax from the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant under the provisions of this subpart may be withdrawn from such establishment in such containers as may be authorized in part 19 of this chapter. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the gauging, packing, bottling, casing, marking, closing and reporting of distilled spirits prior to withdrawal shall be in accordance with the provisions of part 19 of this chapter.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1358, as amended, 1360, as amended, 1374, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5205, 5206, 5301))

[T.D. ATF-62, 44 FR 71722, Dec. 11, 1979. as amended by T.D. ATF-206, 50 FR 23956, June 7, 1985]
NO. 07-07-0460-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

DECEMBER 7, 2007

_______________________________

IN RE GERNORRIS WAYNE DIXON

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Gernorris Wayne Dixon, filed his Application for Writ of Mandamus on

November 9, 2007 contending that the trial court denied him the opportunity to present

evidence of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Further, Dixon contends that the trial court failed to issue a finding of facts and conclusions

of law in the denial of his “First Writ of Habeas Corpus.” However, Dixon did not include

in an appendix to his application a “certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or

any other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j)(A).

Therefore, it is unknown whether the trial court was aware of Dixon’s requests. 

Additionally, Dixon did not pay the filing fee required under Rule 5 of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. By letter from this Court dated November 13, 2007, we

advised Dixon that the “filing fee in the amount of $125.00 did not accompany the
2

captioned original proceeding. Unless the filing fee is paid by Monday, November 26,

2007, this proceeding will be subject to dismissal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Dixon has not paid

the fee as directed nor has he filed an affidavit of indigence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. 

Accordingly, we deny Dixon’s petition. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225

(Tex.App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice
### §1721. Separability

If any provision of this subchapter or of any amendment made by this subchapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this subchapter and of the amendments made by this subchapter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 93–380, title II, §223, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 519.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this part", meaning part A of title II of Pub. L. 93–380, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 519, which is classified generally to this subchapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on and after sixtieth day after Aug. 21, 1974, see section 2(c) of Pub. L. 93–380, set out as a note under section 1221–1 of this title.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 MANUEL TRUJILLO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellant,

9 v. NO. 31,239

10 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,

11 Defendant-Appellee.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

13 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge

14 Manuel Trujillo

15 Albuquerque, NM 

16 Pro Se Appellant

17 Robert D. Kidd, Jr., Interim City Attorney 

18 Sarah E. Lough, Assistant City Attorney

19 Albuquerque, NM 

20 for Appellee

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 VANZI, Judge.

23 Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA.

24 We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice, and we have received a memorandum in
2

1 opposition and a memorandum in support in response to our notice. We have duly

2 considered Plaintiff’s arguments, but we find them unpersuasive. We affirm.

3 As noted in our calendar notice, a Rule 1-012(B)(6) motion will be upheld if,

4 under any state of facts provable under the claim, the plaintiff cannot recover or obtain

5 relief. Valdez v. State, 2002-NMSC-028, ¶ 4, 132 N.M. 667, 54 P.3d 71. Plaintiff’s

6 complaint is titled, “Civil Complaint Discrimination,” and asks for 1.5 billion dollars

7 from Defendant. Plaintiff states that the claims arise from “numerous discrimination

8 charges from” two metropolitan court cases. [RP 9] An attachment to the complaint

9 lists vandalism, seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal stop, failure to

10 transport, excessive bail, and “not giving me back my money.” [RP 10-11] The

11 complaint does not include any allegations of discrimination. Plaintiff includes no

12 facts that would support a discrimination claim upon which relief could be granted.

13 Plaintiff provides no facts or authority to support what appears to be a claim that he

14 was the target of discrimination or to support his claim that he is entitled to 1.5 billion

15 dollars as a result. 

16 Accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint,

17 it is clear that Plaintiff cannot recover under any state of facts that are provable under
3

1 his complaint. See Valdez, 2002-NMSC-028, ¶ 4. For the reasons discussed in this

2 opinion and in our calendar notice, we affirm the decision of the district court.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 __________________________________

5 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

6 WE CONCUR:

7 _________________________________

8 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

9 _________________________________

10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Eric Danon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Elva  International,
Inc.

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report.

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d- 14) for the registrant and have:

     A) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
     B) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "evaluation date"); and
     C)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the evaluation date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     A) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     B) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 22, 2004

/s/ Eric Danon
-----------------------------------------------
Eric Danon
Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)