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 HIGH

 344

 357

 384

 423

 460

 455

 444

 437

 438

 444

 451

 453

 458

 465

 480

 503

 534

 539

 539

 515

 510

 483

 460

 460

 448

 448

 441

 448

 447

 460

 470

 300

 265

 322

 341

 364

 373

 386

 377

 365

 369

 384

 380

 372

 391

 394

 415

 422

 422

 423

 428

 428

 420

 412

 408

 391

 374

 364

 360

 372

 371

 389

 318

 319

 350

 378

 405

 408

 403

 396

 390

 395

 408

 410

 410

 420

 430

 454

 467

 468

 462

 457

 453

 440

 429

 425

 416

 399

 393

 397

 399

 408

 422

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 10, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
§ 10.822 How are subpoenas or advisory opinions obtained? ( a ) The provider may apply to the administrative law judge for the issuance of subpoenas upon a showing of good cause therefor.
( b ) A certification of a request for an advisory opinion concerning professional medical standards, medical ethics or medical regulation to a competent recognized or professional organization or Federal, State or local regulatory agency may be made: ( 1 ) As to an issue properly designated by the provider, in the sound discretion of the administrative law judge, provided that the request will not unduly delay the proceedings;
( 2 ) By OWCP on its own motion either before or after the institution of proceedings, and the results thereof shall be made available to the provider at the time that proceedings are instituted or, if after the proceedings are instituted, within a reasonable time after receipt. The opinion, if rendered by the organization or agency, is advisory only and not binding on the administrative law judge.
#### § 210.6 Service credited for creditable military service.

Any calendar month in which an employee performed creditable military service, as defined in part 212 of this chapter, shall be counted as a month of service and shall be included in the employee's years of service, as provided for in § 210.5, provided that the employee has not previously been credited with reported or deemed service for an employer for the same month(s).

[53 FR 17184, May 16, 1988]
### §912. Officer or employee of the United States

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§76 and 123 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§32 and 66, 35 Stat. 1095, 1100; Feb. 28, 1938, ch. 37, 52 Stat. 82).

Section consolidates sections 76 and 123 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The effect of this consolidation was to increase the punishment for revenue officers from $500 to $1,000 and from 2 years to 3 years, and to rephrase in the alternative the mandatory punishment provision.

This section now applies the same punishment to all officers and agents of the United States found guilty of false personation.

Words "agency or" were inserted to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section. (See definitive section 6 of this title.) Other words referring to "authority of any corporation owned or controlled by the United States" were omitted for the same reason. (See Pierce v. U.S., 1941, 62 S. Ct. 237, 314 U.S. 306, 86 L. Ed. 226.)

The words "with the intent to defraud the United States or any person", contained in said section 76 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as meaningless in view of United States v. Lapowich, 63 S. Ct. 914.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
#### GLP, as next friend to S.G., a Minor, Appellant, v. Barry Lynn NUTT, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Miller County Juvenile Detention Center Supervising Guard, Defendant, Helen Andrews, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Miller County Juvenile Detention Center Administrator; Hubert Easley, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Miller County Judge, Appellees.

No. 05-2903.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2006.

Filed: Aug. 4, 2006.

Brent Maurice Langdon, Holman & Cranford, Texarkana, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

C. Burt Newell, Bachelor & Newell, Ralph Charles Ohm, Hot Springs, AR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

GLP, as next Mend to S.G., a minor, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment, and its denial of her motion for reconsideration, in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. GLP sued Miller County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) officials Helen Andrews and Judge Hubert Easley, and JDC supervising guard Barry Nutt, after Nutt sexually assaulted SG while she was a JDC detainee. The district court granted summary judgment to Andrews and Judge Easley on GLP’s claims that they violated SG’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing properly to train and supervise Nutt.2

Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that Andrews and Judge Easley were entitled to qualified immunity on the individual-capacity claims against them. *See Janis v. Biesheuvel,*428 F.3d 795, 798-99 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review; qualified-immunity analysis); *Spruce v. Sargent,*149 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir.1998) (failure-to-proteet claim); *Andrews v. Fowler,*98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir.1996) (supervisory liability under § 1983). We also agree with the district court that there were no trialworthy issues on the official-capacity claims. *See Larkin v. St. Louis Housing Authority Dev’p Corp.,*355 F.3d 1114, 1117 (8th Cir.2004) (discussing elements of failure-to-train claim against local government entity); *Liebe v. Norton,*157 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir.1998) (suit against county sheriff in his official capacity must be treated as *516suit against county). Finally, we find no clear abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of GLP’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. *See U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc.,*320 F.3d 809, 815-16 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

2

. GLP has waived her claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. *See Watson v. O’Neill,*365 F.3d 609, 614 n. 4 (8th Cir.2004) (where appellant offered no argument on appeal related to one claim, it was deemed waived). Her Fourth Amendment claim against Nutt was non-suited and is not before us. Finally, we do not consider GLP’s newly raised substantive due process arguments. *See Cross v. Monett R-I Bd. ofEduc.,*431 F.3d 606, 611 n. 2 (8th Cir.2005).
#### Marvin Earl WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles WILSON; et al., Defendants— Appellees.

No. 05-15402.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Marvin Earl Wall, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

S. Michele Inan, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

Marvin Earl Wall, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs stemming from an infection in his right ear. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Nelson v. Heiss,*271 F.3d 891, 893 *228(9th Cir.2001), and its grant of summary judgment, *Morrison v. Hall,*261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wall’s claim against defendant Allen because Wall failed to allege conduct by Allen amounting to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. *See Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Escobar and Wilson because Wall failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996). Wall’s disagreement with Wilson’s course of treatment is not sufficient. *See id.*(holding a difference in opinion between the physician and the prisoner concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).

Wall’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED

**

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         786,907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,380
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,116,383
<PP&E>                                         157,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,601,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,281,573
<OTHER-SE>                                   (142,063)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,601,890
<SALES>                                      2,151,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,174,805
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,914,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                239,102
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (183,750)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            422,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   422,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .036
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .035
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER VI—COSMETICS
#### § 10.905 If an employee incurs a covered injury in connection with his or her service with an Armed Force in a contingency operation but does not die of the injury until years later, does the death qualify for payment of the death gratuity?

Yes—as long as the employee's death is a result of injuries incurred in connection with the employee's service with an Armed Force in a contingency operation, the death qualifies for the death gratuity of this subpart regardless of how long after the injury the employee's death occurs.
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.

§ 478.142 Effect of pardons and expunctions of convictions. ( a ) A pardon granted by the President of the United States regarding a Federal conviction for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year shall remove any disability which otherwise would be imposed by the provisions of this part with respect to that conviction.
( b ) A pardon granted by the Governor of a State or other State pardoning authority or by the pardoning authority of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to a conviction, or any expunction, reversal, setting aside of a conviction, or other proceeding rendering a conviction nugatory, or a restoration of civil rights shall remove any disability which otherwise would be imposed by the provisions of this part with respect to the conviction, unless: ( 1 ) The pardon, expunction, setting aside, or other proceeding rendering a conviction nugatory, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess or receive firearms; or
( 2 ) The pardon, expunction, setting aside, or other proceeding rendering a conviction nugatory, or restoration of civil rights did not fully restore the rights of the person to possess or receive firearms under the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred.
[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10505, Mar. 31, 1988]
### SUBCHAPTER VI—EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION PROGRAM
#### § 229.4 Applying for the overall minimum.

The Board may require an annuitant to provide information regarding his or her family and regarding his or her earnings from employment and self-employment in order to determine whether the claimant or annuitant qualifies for the overall minimum.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3220-0083)
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

 1,901.33

 1,901.48

 1,901.56

 1,901.60

 1,900.76

 1,900.63

 1,901.23

 1,901.31

 1,901.31

 1,901.31

 1,901.31

 1,901.31

 1,901.54

 1,901.58

 1,901.54

 1,901.64

 1,901.58

 1,901.06

 1,901.34

 1,901.59

 1,901.59

 1,901.61

 1,901.40

 1,901.41

 1,901.26

 1,901.02

 1,901.10

 1,901.76

 1,901.53

 1,901.32

 1,901.10

 14,158

 14,270

 14,330

 14,360

 13,734

 13,639

 14,083

 14,143

 14,143

 14,143

 14,143

 14,143

 14,315

 14,345

 14,315

 14,390

 14,345

 13,956

 14,165

 14,352

 14,352

 14,367

 14,210

 14,218

 14,105

 13,926

 13,986

 14,479

 14,307

 14,150

 13,986

STORAGE

-321

+112

+60

+30

-626

-95

+444

+60

+0

+0

+0

+0

+172

+30

-30

+75

-45

-389

+209

+187

+0

+15

-157

+8

-113

-179

+60

+493

-172

-157

-164

CHANGE

1,399

1,738

1,911

1,609

685

825

1,095

881

876

875

915

872

551

855

792

784

707

612

831

841

730

735

652

733

670

636

759

987

654

658

659

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

POWER

 361

 362

 364

 363

 364

 361

 360

 361

 364

 366

 361

 360

 358

 337

 294

 237

 216

 214

 213

 214

 216

 215

 215

 215

 214

 213

 216

 227

 228

 226

 225

SPILL

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

 78

OUTLETS

 2

 3

 2

 6

 2

 1

 1

 1

 3

 1

 0

 0

 4

 4

 5

 1

 6

 3

 2

 3

 3

 4

 3

 2

 3

 3

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

C.F.S.

 .11

 .12

 .09

 .25

 .08

 .04

 .05

 .05

 .12

 .03

 .00

 .01

 .18

 .18

 .23

 .06

 .25

 .16

 .10

 .13

 .12

 .16

 .12

 .10

 .14

 .15

 .10

 .08

 .08

 .06

 .09

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2020 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 1, 2020

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -493 27,527 0 2,418 8,840 77 3.44

ACRE-FEET -493 54,600 0 4,796 17,534 153

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

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE.

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 0

TOTAL RIVER 22,330 54,943

 14,479

 32,613

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 1,120

 1,239

 1,437

 1,147

 557

 433

 432

 411

 431

 430

 476

 434

 24

 421

 430

 430

 430

 513

 433

 452

 433

 430

 435

 434

 432

 432

 433

 431

 433

 432

 437

 16,442

 32,613
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2


                            PACCAR Financial Corp.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       PURSUANT TO THE SUPPORT AGREEMENT
                      BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PACCAR Inc
                            (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Nine Months Ended
                                                   September 30
                                                 1998          1997
                                               --------      --------
<S>                                            <C>           <C>
FIXED CHARGES
  Interest expense                             $ 82,774      $ 75,238
  Facility and equipment rental                     688           562
                                               --------      --------

TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                            $ 83,462      $ 75,800
                                               --------      --------
                                               --------      --------

EARNINGS
  Income before taxes                          $ 35,944      $ 38,451
  Depreciation                                    5,077         5,668
                                               --------      --------

                                                 41,021        44,119 
  Fixed charges                                  83,462        75,800 
                                               --------      --------

EARNINGS AS DEFINED                            $124,483      $119,919
                                               --------      --------
                                               --------      --------

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                1.49x         1.58x
</TABLE>


                                     -14-
### §932. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) The term "dependent" means a minor individual—

(A) who has not completed secondary schooling, and

(B) who is the child, stepchild, adopted child, ward, or spouse of a sponsor, or who is a resident in the household of a sponsor who stands in loco parentis to such individual and who receives one-half or more of his support from such sponsor.

(2) The term "sponsor" means a person—

(A) who is—

(i) a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty, or

(ii) a full-time civilian officer or employee of the Department of Defense and a citizen or national of the United States; and

(B) who is authorized to transport dependents to or from an overseas area at Government expense and is provided an allowance for living quarters in that area.

(3) The term "overseas area" means any area situated outside the United States.

(4) The term "United States", when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (excluding the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and Midway Island).

(5) The term "involuntarily separated" has the meaning given that term in section 1141 of title 10.

(6) The term "Director" means the Director of the Department of Defense Education Activity.

(Pub. L. 95–561, title XIV, §1414, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2372; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title III, §325(a), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1415; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, §504(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1559; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title III, §354(7), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 574.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Par. (6). Pub. L. 106–65 added par. (6).

1990—Par. (5). Pub. L. 101–510 added par. (5).

1989—Par. (2). Pub. L. 101–189 amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: "The term 'sponsor' means—

"(A) a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty, or

"(B) a civilian officer or employee of the Department of Defense paid from appropriated funds."

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

#### Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–189 applicable with respect to periods of enrollment in schools of the defense dependents' education system beginning after Sept. 30, 1989, see section 325(c) of Pub. L. 101–189, set out as a note under section 923 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3834 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3834

 To amend GEAR UP to require that schools receiving funding under the 
  program provide students with access to academic and mental health 
              counseling services, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 2015

Mrs. Lawrence (for herself and Ms. Lee) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend GEAR UP to require that schools receiving funding under the 
  program provide students with access to academic and mental health 
              counseling services, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``GEAR UP for Counseling''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF ACADEMIC AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING.

    Section 404D(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1070a-24(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(5) Providing participating students access to academic 
        and mental health counseling services.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 404H of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-
28) is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2017''.
                                 <all>
```