alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 9/13/ 22 P. v. Newman CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JERRETT WILLIAM NEWMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. F083764

(Super. Ct. No. F21904910)



### OPINION

THE COURT *
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M.
Skiles, Judge.
Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Hill, P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.2

.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jerrett William Newman asked this court to

review the record to determine whether th ere are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 .) Defendant was advised of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant
did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2021, a Fowler police officer stopped defendant, who had many prior
convictions, because the officer knew defendant did not have a valid driver’s license.
Defendant was belligerent, and he resisted and struck the officer. Ammuniti on was found
inside the vehicle he was driving.
On June 17, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant with
resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69; 1 count 1), possession of ammunition by a
person prohibited from owning a firearm ( § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 2), misdemeanor
resisting a peace officer ( § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and driving a vehicle without a
valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a), an infraction; count 4).
On August 20, 2021, defendant pled no contest t o count 1 pursuant to a negotiated
plea agreement.
Around December 10, 2021, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. 2 On
December 10, 2021, the trial cou r t denied the motion to withdraw the plea. The court
suspended imposition of sentence and granted def endant probation for two years with

321 days in jail, and awarded that amount of credit for time served.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

2 The written motion to withdraw the plea could not be located and is not part of the

rec ord on appeal, but the grounds of the plea were discussed in court.3

.

On January 5, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his
request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION
Having un dertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
### §5951. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–110, title X, §1011(4)(B), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1986

Section, Pub. L. 103–227, title VI, §601, Mar. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 200; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title VIII, §301(e)], div. G, subdiv. A, title XIII, §1335(e), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–410, 2681–788, related to International Education Program.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 8, 2002, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 107–110, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6301 of this title.
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.

§ 44.224 Inspection by an appropriate TTB officer. ( a ) *Examination.* An appropriate TTB officer will examine the tobacco products, and cigarette papers and tubes listed on TTB Form 5620.7. Such officer will verify the accuracy of the schedule of such articles on TTB Form 5620.7.
( b ) *Label or notice.* If the tax on such articles has been paid by return, the appropriate TTB officer must be satisfied that the articles have in fact been taxpaid and each package bears the label or notice required by § 44.222.
( c ) *Shipping containers.* The appropriate officer will supervise the packing of such articles in shipping containers. Each container must be numbered and have affixed to it the notice: Drawback of tax claimed on contents. Sale, consumption, or use in U.S. prohibited.
( d ) *Disposition of TTB Form 5620.7.* After the appropriate TTB officer completes the report of inspection on TTB Form 5620.7, such officer will return two copies to the claimant and send a copy to the TTB office listed on the form.
( e ) *Release.* After executing the report of inspection on TTB Form 5620.7, the appropriate TTB office will release the shipment to the claimant for delivery to the port of exportation.
[T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30803, May 8, 2002]
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

 220.25

 221.01

 221.94

 222.95

 222.07

 221.56

 221.47

 220.56

 219.95

 220.15

 218.46

 218.26

 219.07

 219.76

 220.02

 219.05

 217.61

 217.60

 217.96

 217.71

 219.84

 219.60

 219.44

 219.02

 219.18

 220.19

 220.09

 221.98

 222.99

 222.06

 43,801

 45,787

 48,229

 50,913

 48,571

 47,230

 46,994

 44,609

 43,023

 43,541

 39,221

 38,719

 40,762

 42,531

 43,204

 40,711

 37,111

 37,087

 37,973

 37,356

 42,738

 42,119

 41,708

 40,635

 41,042

 43,645

 43,386

 48,334

 51,019

 48,544

STORAGE

+2,247

+1,986

+2,442

+2,684

-2,342

-1,341

-236

-2,385

-1,586

+518

-4,320

-502

+2,043

+1,769

+673

-2,493

-3,600

-24

+886

-617

+5,382

-619

-411

-1,073

+407

+2,603

-259

+4,948

+2,685

-2,475

CHANGE

0

0

294

734

601

440

571

634

477

125

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

PUMPING

 3,353

 3,797

 3,717

 3,564

 3,580

 3,123

 2,614

 3,311

 3,588

 3,423

 4,705

 3,919

 3,861

 3,221

 3,828

 3,159

 3,973

 4,716

 4,664

 4,199

 4,352

 4,955

 4,589

 4,618

 4,711

 3,929

 4,744

 3,252

 4,029

 4,308

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 663

 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

PUMPING

 213

 430

 249

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 376

 760

 764

 749

 739

 900

 1,074

 1,157

 1,230

 1,343

 1,285

 1,121

 1,013

 1,023

 904

 891

 939

 829

 665

 957

 1,440

GEN.

*

-263

-214

-102

-116

+6

+32

-47

-57

-80

-77

+71

+22

+268

-409

+180

-214

+278

-281

+14

+4

+241

-73

-98

+28

+37

+40

-214

-17

-239

+85

OR

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL O'NEILL FOREBAY June 25, 2008

DAILY OPERATIONS

APRIL 2008 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE GEN.

ACRE-FEET O'NEILL

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +6,990 3,876 21,051 663 117,802 -1,195

ACRE-FEET +6,990 7,688 41,755 1,315 233,660

SUMMARY

 759

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

O'NEILL GEN. 41,755

SAN LUIS PUMP 1,315 759

 41,554

DOS AMIGOS PUMP 233,660

DELIVERIES 

S. LUIS O'NEILL

 3,780

 3,300

 2,632

 1,633

 163

 0

 0

 0

 1,478

 2,718

 2,224

 3,958

 4,980

 5,041

 4,223

 2,198

 1,960

 3,756

 6,415

 4,460

 6,918

 4,973

 5,123

 4,795

 5,421

 5,372

 5,074

 6,071

 6,035

 4,552

 109,253

 216,703

CALIF. DOS AMIGOS

AQUEDUCT

1,182

2,143

2,372

2,666

2,292

1,975

1,971

1,532

913

1,294

993

450

392

219

663

992

1,076

2,458

25

708

1,027

756

380

158

350

768

582

359

543

246

 31,485

 62,450

S. LUIS

DELIV.

GAINS(+)

LOSS(-)

C.F.S.

INFLOW - C.F.S.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

TOTAL 277,489

-2,370

* DAILY DEL. FIGURES UNAVAILABLE. TOT. DEL. IS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING MONTHLY TOTALS 

Table 18
### §7920. Consultation with the Governor

#### (a) In general

A State educational agency shall consult in a timely and meaningful manner with the Governor, or appropriate officials from the Governor's office, in the development of State plans under subchapters I and II and section 7842 of this title.

#### (b) Timing

The consultation described in subsection (a) shall include meetings of officials from the State educational agency and the Governor's office and shall occur—

(1) during the development of such plan; and

(2) prior to submission of the plan to the Secretary.

#### (c) Joint signature authority

A Governor shall have 30 days prior to the State educational agency submitting the State plan under subchapter I or II or section 7842 of this title to the Secretary to sign such plan. If the Governor has not signed the plan within 30 days of delivery by the State educational agency to the Governor, the State educational agency shall submit the plan to the Secretary without such signature.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title VIII, §8540, as added Pub. L. 114–95, title VIII, §8032, Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2118.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as an Effective Date of 2015 Amendment note under section 6301 of this title.
#### Wilma YAMBAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76508.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Armando G. Salazar, Esq., San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Loretta F. Radford, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wilma Yambao, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration *232judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *see Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ made an adverse credibility finding based on numerous inconsistencies both within Yambao’s testimony and between her testimony and her asylum application and the medical reports she submitted. Yambao submitted medical evidence regarding the effect of her psychological condition upon her ability to testify consistently. However, considering this evidence, Yambao’s failure to produce any evidence to support her claim that she and her four children were persecuted by the New People’s Army (“NPA”) constitutes substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility determination. *See Sidhu v. INS,*220 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir.2000).

Further, even if her testimony is taken as true, the extortion and other acts that Yambao claims the NPA perpetrated do not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

We do not consider whether Yambao was eligible for withholding of removal because she failed to offer any argument in support of that contention. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

Respondent’s request for oral argument is denied.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### RE: Response to OMB Comments on CO NAAQS Rosalina Rodriguez to: Kymn, Christine J. 08/08/2011 01:28 PM Cc: Sherry Russell, Margaret Morrison

Christine, we are proceeding to schedule the meeting for 9-10am tomorrow morning. Margaret will call you with the call-in number. Is this a wrap up meeting and could you give me an idea of the specifics to be discussed? It's the full interagency panel, right? Thanks.

RR 919-541-5298

"Kymn, Christine J." 08/08/2011 11:53:15 AM Hi Rosalina, Thanks again to EPA for sending...

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine

_ J.

_ Kymn@omb.eop.gov> To: Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Somers/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Lamason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sherry Russell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/08/2011 11:53 AM Subject: RE: Response to OMB Comments on CO NAAQS



### Hi Rosalina, Thanks again to EPA for sending this response. Do folks have time around COB today for a quick call?
Have a great day, Christine

From: Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, A u g ust 04, 2011 4:38 PM To: Kymn, Christine J. Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov; Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov; Weinstock.Lewis@epamail .epa.gov; Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov; Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov; Somers.Joseph@epamail .epa.gov; Orlin.David@epamail.epa.gov; Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Lamason.Bill@epamail .epa.gov; Russell.Sherry@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Response to OMB Comments on CO NAAQS

Hi, Christine:

Attached is a file with our response to the 2 comments we received with respect to monitoring under the CO NAAQS, currently under OMB review (with court ordered deadline for signature of August 12). Specifically, the two comments we addressed are: (1) rationale for the 1 million population threshold, and (2) consideration of comments regarding safety concerns for near-road monitors.

Please let us know if you have further comments. Thank you.

Rosalina M. Rodriguez Associate Division Director, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, USEPA
919-541-5298
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE0 1295 A 3

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
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

 122.77

 122.45

 122.37

 122.32

 122.52

 122.49

 122.86

 122.43

 122.29

 122.29

 121.98

 122.56

 122.68

 122.74

 122.56

 122.51

 122.67

 122.47

 122.41

 121.95

 122.63

 122.41

 122.49

 122.35

 122.62

 122.41

 122.51

 122.23

 122.63

 122.50

 122.54

 7,688

 7,544

 7,508

 7,485

 7,575

 7,562

 7,728

 7,535

 7,472

 7,472

 7,333

 7,593

 7,647

 7,674

 7,593

 7,571

 7,643

 7,553

 7,526

 7,320

 7,625

 7,526

 7,562

 7,499

 7,620

 7,526

 7,571

 7,445

 7,625

 7,566

 7,584

STORAGE

-159

-144

-36

-23

+90

-13

+166

-193

-63

+0

-139

+260

+54

+27

-81

-22

+72

-90

-27

-206

+305

-99

+36

-63

+121

-94

+45

-126

+180

-59

+18

CHANGE

1,038

1,037

1,088

1,095

1,084

1,041

1,134

957

983

1,049

981

1,180

1,079

1,068

1,010

1,041

1,095

1,012

969

964

1,223

992

1,057

1,003

1,094

989

1,068

982

1,147

1,028

1,062

INFLOW

 233

 233

 233

 359

 928

 936

 943

 948

 908

 942

 945

 943

 946

 947

 945

 942

 947

 946

 872

 956

 960

 935

 935

 934

 932

 934

 943

 944

 955

 734

 946

POWER

 780

 768

 762

 637

 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

 222

 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

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 2

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2008 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: June 25, 2008

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -263 32,550 26,204 3,169 1,860 47

ACRE-FEET -263 64,563 51,976 6,286 3,689 93

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 51,976

SPILL 6,286

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 2,785

 3,689

 7,847

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

 43

 47

 50

 50

 50

 50

 46

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 48

 50

 50

 50

 50

 47

 45

 42

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 41

 45

 1,404

 2,785

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET) 

TOTAL 64,736

Table 12
### SUBCHAPTER VII—MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE
§ 9.135 Virginia's Eastern Shore. ( a ) *Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Virginia's Eastern Shore.”
( b ) *Approved maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the “Virginia's Eastern Shore” viticultural area are 3 U.S.G.S. Quadrangle (1:250,000 Series) maps. They are titled: ( 1 ) Eastville, VA.; N.C.; MD., 1946 (revised 1969).
( 2 ) Salisbury, MD.; DEL.; N.J.; VA., 1946 (revised 1969).
( 3 ) Richmond VA.; MD., 1973.
( c ) *Boundary.* The Virginia's Eastern Shore viticultural area is located in Accomack and Northampton counties, Virginia. The boundary is as follows: ( 1 ) The beginning point is the intersection of the Virginia/Maryland border and Chincoteague Bay, near Greenbackville on the Salisbury, MD., U.S.G.S. map;
( 2 ) From the beginning point, the boundary follows the coastline in a southwesterly direction. Where there are marshes indicated on the U.S.G.S. maps, the boundry is the inland side of these marshes;
( 3 ) When the boundary reaches the southernmost point of the peninsula, on the Eastville, VA., U.S.G.S. map, the boundary turns and proceeds in a northwesterly direction, again following the coastline around Cherrystone Inlet on the Richmond, VA., U.S.G.S. map;
( 4 ) The boundary continues to follow the coastline and the inland side of any marshes indicated on the U.S.G.S. maps in a northeasterly direction, until it reaches the Virginia/Maryland border on the Eastville, VA., U.S.G.S. map;
( 5 ) The boundary then follows the Virginia/Maryland border back to the beginning point at Chincoteague Bay on the Salisbury, MD., U.S.G.S. map.
[T.D. ATF-309, 56 FR 24, Jan. 2, 1991]
### §733. Repealed. Pub. L. 90–575, title II, §291(b)(1), Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1050

Section, Pub. L. 88–204, title II, §203, Dec. 16, 1963, 77 Stat. 371, established an Advisory Committee on Graduate Education.
(No. 00038

#### Roseann Moran, as wife of Timothy William Moran, deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 6, 1973.*

Roseann Moran, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, and Vincent Biskupic, Special Assistant Attorney, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

This claim, arising out of the death of a fireman 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”] *Ch. 48, Sec. 281, et. seq., Ill.Rev.Stat., 1971.*

The court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and fur*525nished 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, the court finds as follows:

1. That the claimant Roseann Moran, is the wife of the decedent and is the beneficiary who was designated by him as stated in her application for benefits.

2. That the decedent, Timothy William Moran, was a fireman employed by the Chicago Fire Department and engaged in the active performance of his duties, within the meaning of §2(c) of the Act, on January 6, 1973.

3. That on said date, Fireman Moran was at the scene of a fire at the Forum Cafeteria, 64 W. Madison Street in Chicago. While Fireman Moran was inside the cafeteria fighting the blaze, the building collapsed covering him with debris. Fireman Moran died on January 6, 1973, and the coroner’s certificate of death recites the cause of death as "smoke inhalation (carbon monoxide asphyxia)”.

4. That Fireman Moran was killed in the line of duty as defined in §2(c) of the Act.

5. 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 $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) be awarded to Roseann Moran as wife and designated beneficiary of the deceased fireman, Timothy William Moran.
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

 123.85

 123.30

 123.27

 123.13

 124.10

 123.56

 123.60

 123.70

 123.87

 124.18

 124.02

 123.40

 122.18

 123.39

 123.93

 124.49

 123.89

 123.67

 123.93

 124.44

 123.61

 123.25

 124.14

 123.39

 123.44

 123.65

 123.59

 123.65

 123.45

 123.53

 8,191

 7,932

 7,918

 7,852

 8,311

 8,054

 8,073

 8,120

 8,200

 8,351

 8,271

 7,979

 7,422

 7,974

 8,228

 8,506

 8,209

 8,106

 8,228

 8,481

 8,078

 7,909

 8,331

 7,974

 7,998

 8,097

 8,068

 8,097

 8,003

 8,040

STORAGE

+43

-259

-14

-66

+459

-257

+19

+47

+80

+151

-80

-292

-557

+552

+254

+278

-297

-103

+122

+253

-403

-169

+422

-357

+24

+99

-29

+29

-94

+37

CHANGE

4,966

4,800

4,892

4,916

5,171

4,798

6,717

8,064

8,054

7,980

7,937

7,797

7,534

8,043

8,238

7,555

6,322

5,705

5,245

5,142

4,816

4,853

4,742

3,844

3,975

4,002

3,944

3,977

3,942

4,029

INFLOW

 4,837

 4,824

 4,791

 4,841

 4,833

 4,820

 4,871

 4,916

 4,880

 4,762

 4,820

 4,830

 4,796

 4,789

 4,968

 4,978

 4,989

 4,924

 4,915

 4,906

 4,912

 4,829

 4,416

 3,911

 3,850

 3,842

 3,846

 3,849

 2,608

 2,581

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,730

 3,018

 3,026

 3,036

 3,054

 3,010

 2,915

 2,872

 3,038

 2,334

 1,380

 730

 164

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,267

 1,315

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

 2

 2

 3

 3

 2

 3

 1

 1

 3

 3

 3

 4

 4

 4

 4

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 2

 3

 3

 3

 3

 0

 3

 3

 4

 4

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2010 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2010

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -108 172,000 135,934 32,889 1,800 85

ACRE-FEET -108 341,162 269,625 65,235 3,570 169

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 269,625

SPILL 65,235

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 2,668

 3,570

 8,148

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 43

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 40

 41

 45

 45

 46

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 50

 1,345

 2,668

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 341,098