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

 1,156.65

 1,156.63

 1,156.61

 1,156.59

 1,156.57

 1,156.55

 1,156.54

 1,156.49

 1,156.45

 1,156.40

 1,156.37

 1,156.36

 1,156.34

 1,156.33

 1,156.30

 1,156.28

 1,156.26

 1,156.24

 1,156.21

 1,156.16

 1,156.12

 1,156.08

 1,156.04

 1,156.00

 1,155.99

 1,155.99

 1,155.99

 1,155.99

 1,155.99

 1,155.99

 1,155.99

 5.34

 5.33

 5.32

 5.31

 5.30

 5.29

 5.29

 5.27

 5.25

 5.23

 5.22

 5.21

 5.21

 5.20

 5.19

 5.18

 5.17

 5.16

 5.15

 5.13

 5.11

 5.10

 5.08

 5.07

 5.06

 5.06

 5.06

 5.06

 5.06

 5.06

 5.06

STORAGE

+0.00

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

+0.00

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

-0.01

+0.00

-0.01

+0.00

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

-0.01

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

CHANGE

16

14

14

15

13

14

14

5

8

4

7

11

7

10

5

5

7

6

4

2

1

3

1

2

9

8

8

8

8

8

9

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

SPILL

 14

 14

 14

 14

 13

 12

 11

 11

 10

 9

 8

 7

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

OUTLET

 4

 4

 5

 5

 5

 6

 5

 5

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 6

 5

 4

 5

 4

 5

 6

 4

 5

 4

 4

 6

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 6

C.F.S.

 .31

 .31

 .37

 .40

 .37

 .42

 .38

 .40

 .41

 .45

 .46

 .41

 .45

 .42

 .38

 .33

 .35

 .32

 .37

 .42

 .29

 .34

 .32

 .33

 .44

 .34

 .38

 .39

 .38

 .39

 .48

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 9.00

 .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-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2021 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 09/02/2021

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -.29 246 233 0 158 11.81 9.00

ACRE-FEET -290 488 462 0 313

COMMENTS:

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

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 462

 462

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 9.00

JULY 1, 2020 11.40

 5.34

OCT 1, 2020 TO DATE = 11.36
#### § 219.2 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Annuity* means a recurring payment due an entitled person for a calendar month and made to him or her on the first day of the following month.

*Apply* means to sign a form or statement that the Board accepts as an application.

*Claimant* means the person who files an application for an annuity or lump-sum payment for himself, herself, or some other person.

*Benefit* means any employee annuity, spouse annuity, survivor annuity, or lump-sum payment under the Railroad Retirement Act.

*Convincing evidence* means one or more pieces of evidence that proves to the satisfaction of the Board that an individual meets a requirement for eligibility for benefits. See § 219.7 for guides the Board uses in deciding whether evidence is convincing.

*Eligible* means that a person meets all of the requirements for payment of benefits but has not yet applied therefor.

*Entitled* means that a person has applied for and has proved his or her right to payment of benefits.

*Evidence* means any record or document or testimony that helps to show whether a person is eligible for benefits. It may also be used to establish whether the person is still entitled to benefits.

*Representative* means a person who acts on behalf of a claimant in regard to his or her claim for benefits from the Board and in the presentation of evidence to support the claim.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0236. DUSTIN JAMES RICHARDS v. JUNO TAX RECEIVABLES, LLC et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV252844
§ 234.11 1974 Act lump-sum death payment. ( a ) The total amount of the 1974 Act LSDP is payable to the employee's widow(er), if she or he was “living in the same household” as the employee at the time of the employee's death. (Refer to § 234.21 for an explanation of “living in the same household.”)
( b ) The amount of the 1974 Act LSDP is equal to three times the amount of the PIA, as determined by section 215 of the Social Security Act, or $255.00, whichever is less.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




                                                    
<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC
TELESIS QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-Q AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             9-MOS
<CASH>                                                   58,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         2,328,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             244,000
<INVENTORY>                                                    0 <F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       3,138,000
<PP&E>                                                30,011,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                        17,857,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        17,182,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  5,430,000
<BONDS>                                                5,403,000
<COMMON>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                             2,072,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          17,182,000
<SALES>                                                        0 <F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       7,463,000
<CGS>                                                          0 <F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          3,080,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,962,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         204,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       335,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (734,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (189,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (545,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                322,000
<NET-INCOME>                                           (223,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
<FN>
<F1> THIS AMOUNT IS IMMATERIAL.
<F2> NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES AND THEREFORE HAS NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  THIS AMOUNT
IS INCLUDED IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES' TAG.
<F3> COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTS IN
THE FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG,  PURSUANT TO REGULATION 2-X,
RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 30.618 What happens if this type of tort suit was filed after December 28, 2001? ( a ) If a tort suit described in § 30.615 was filed after December 28, 2001, the claimant or claimants will be disqualified from receiving any benefits under Part B of EEOICPA if a judgment is entered against them.
( b ) If a tort suit described in § 30.615 was filed after December 28, 2001 and a judgment has not yet been entered against the claimant or claimants, they will also be disqualified from receiving any benefits under Part B of EEOICPA unless, prior to entry of any judgment, they dismiss all claims arising out of a covered Part B employee's employment-related exposure to beryllium or radiation that are included in the tort suit on or before the last permissible date described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) The last permissible date is the later of: ( 1 ) April 30, 2003; or
( 2 ) The date that is 30 months after the date the claimant or claimants first became aware that an illness of the covered Part B employee may be connected to his or her exposure to beryllium or radiation covered by EEOICPA. For purposes of determining when this 30-month period begins, “the date the claimant or claimants first became aware” will be deemed to be the date they received either a reconstructed dose from NIOSH, or a diagnosis of a covered beryllium illness, as applicable.
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3053, Feb. 8, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000732718
<NAME> U S WEST, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             259                     259
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,107                   2,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        216                     216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,133                   3,133
<PP&E>                                          39,149                  39,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,600                  20,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,554                  40,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,565                   6,565
<BONDS>                                         13,422                  13,422
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,180                   1,180
<PREFERRED>                                        921                     921
<COMMON>                                        10,800                  10,800
<OTHER-SE>                                       (199)                   (199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,554                  40,554
<SALES>                                          3,918                  11,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,918                  11,471
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,134                   9,058
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 279                     823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    333                   1,148
<INCOME-TAX>                                       135                     485
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                198                     663
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (6)                     (3)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       192                     660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69                    2.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69                    2.06
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Manhattan Railway Company (Ninth Avenue Additional Tracks).

Motion granted. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 30.907 Can an impairment evaluation obtained by OWCP be challenged prior to issuance of the recommended decision? ( a ) An employee may submit arguments challenging an impairment evaluation, and/or additional medical evidence of impairment, before the district office issues a recommended decision on his or her claim. However, the district office will not consider an additional impairment evaluation, even if it differs from the impairment evaluation obtained under § 30.905 or § 30.906, if it does not meet the criteria listed in § 30.905(b)(1), (2) and (3).
( b ) If the district office obtains an additional impairment evaluation that differs from the impairment evaluation obtained under § 30.905 or § 30.906, the district office will base its recommended determinations regarding impairment upon the evidence it considers to have the greatest probative value, after evaluating all relevant evidence of impairment in the record, including evidence from directed impairment evaluations and referee impairment evaluations, if any, that it deems necessary pursuant to §§ 30.410 and 30.411 of this part.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Liza Lawonna BESHIRS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41359

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

Jaime Alberto Pena, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald Lee Bailey, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Liza Lawonna Beshirs pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or *345possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense methamphetamine. She appeals the sentence imposed following our remand to the district court for resentencing in accordance with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *See United States v. Beshirs,*135 Fed.Appx. 685 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished). The district court granted the Government’s Fed.R.CrimP. 35(b) motion and sentenced Beshirs to 81 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release.

Beshirs argues that the district court’s determination to apply a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm and a six-level increase for creating a substantial risk of harm to a minor in calculating the advisory guidelines range violated her Sixth Amendment rights. She concedes, however, that this court has approved this method of sentencing, and she does not challenge the reasonableness of the sentence imposed.

“The precise Sixth Amendment error identified in *Booker*is *not*the use of extra-verdict enhancements that increase a sentence; the constitutional error is that extra-verdict enhancements were being used under mandatory guidelines.” *United States v. Holmes,*406 F.3d 337, 365 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 375, 163 L.Ed.2d 163 (2005). Because the district court considered the Guidelines as advisory when resentencing Beshirs, her Sixth Amendment argument is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6730

GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM C. SMITH, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-00709-HEH)

Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, 

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Buterra Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition 

without prejudice and denying reconsideration. The orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

10 0 0 0

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

15 0 0 0

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0

19 0 0 0

20 0 0 0

21 0 0 0

22 0 0 0

23 0 0 0

24 0 0 0

25 0 0 0

26 0 0 0

27 0 0 0

28 0 0 0

29 0 0 0

30 0 0 0

31 0 0 0

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Pittsburg TopOn The Sacramento River

Period: August 2022 Run Date: 11/22/2022
#### § 10.536 What is the penalty for failing to submit a report of dependents?

If an employee fails to submit a requested statement or supporting document within 30 days of the date of the request, OWCP will suspend his or her right to augmented compensation until OWCP receives the requested statement or supporting document. At that time, OWCP will reinstate augmented compensation retroactive to the date of suspension, provided that the employee is entitled to receive augmented compensation.
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

 207

 214

 236

 260

 272

 272

 260

 262

 262

 233

 235

 222

 215

 208

 206

 208

 207

 212

 219

 217

 225

 214

 210

 215

 613

 649

 211

 202

 193

 200

 215

 144

 146

 147

 148

 150

 153

 155

 158

 163

 166

 169

 170

 172

 174

 173

 176

 169

 169

 171

 174

 167

 163

 169

 171

 169

 180

 170

 163

 166

 171

 169

 170

 170

 173

 180

 185

 196

 188

 188

 181

 180

 182

 179

 180

 182

 183

 185

 182

 182

 184

 185

 181

 181

 182

 183

 337

 494

 187

 184

 184

 185

 187

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 28, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
### §83. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 18, 1894, ch. 301, §1, 28 Stat. 384, which required that a detailed report of expenses on account of the National Zoological Park be made to Congress at the beginning of each regular session, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 192 of House Document No. 103–7.
§ 222.15 When spouse is living with employee. A spouse, or widow(er) is living with the employee if— ( a ) He or she and the employee are living in the same household; or
( b ) The employee is contributing to the support of the spouse or widow(er); or
( c ) The employee is under court order to contribute to the support of the spouse or widow(er).
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5142 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5142

 To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to update the Federal purchase 
requirement to ensure the use of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2019

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to update the Federal purchase 
requirement to ensure the use of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, 
                        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 the ``Green Energy for Federal Buildings 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PURCHASE REQUIREMENT.

    Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
            ``(3) Not less than 7.5 percent in fiscal years 2013 
        through 2019.''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Not less than 35 percent in fiscal years 2030 through 
        2039.
            ``(5) Not less than 75 percent in fiscal years 2040 through 
        2049.
            ``(6) Not less than 100 percent in fiscal year 2050 and 
        each fiscal year thereafter.''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
    ``(c) Feasibility.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
shall seek to ensure that, to the maximum extent economically feasible 
and technically practicable, the Federal Government consumes renewable 
energy produced--
            ``(1) on-site at a Federal facility;
            ``(2) on Federal lands; or
            ``(3) on Indian land as defined in section 2601 of the 
        Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3501).''.
                                 <all>
```