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

DAY ELEVATION

 252.60

 252.60

 252.57

 252.46

 252.55

 252.47

 252.60

 252.60

 252.60

 252.56

 252.55

 252.50

 252.60

 252.55

 252.51

 252.61

 252.56

 252.56

 252.60

 252.55

 252.56

 252.54

 252.48

 252.63

 252.56

 252.54

 252.56

 252.56

 252.20

 252.57

 3,973

 3,973

 3,958

 3,904

 3,948

 3,909

 3,973

 3,973

 3,973

 3,953

 3,948

 3,924

 3,973

 3,948

 3,928

 3,978

 3,953

 3,953

 3,973

 3,948

 3,953

 3,943

 3,914

 3,988

 3,953

 3,943

 3,953

 3,953

 3,774

 3,958

STORAGE

+20

+0

-15

-54

+44

-39

+64

+0

+0

-20

-5

-24

+49

-25

-20

+50

-25

+0

+20

-25

+5

-10

-29

+74

-35

-10

+10

+0

-179

+184

CHANGE

 964

 1,189

 968

 947

 1,251

 1,074

 1,095

 1,026

 643

 709

 695

 436

 760

 1,177

 1,068

 1,233

 1,292

 1,307

 1,261

 1,377

 1,329

 1,419

 1,533

 1,567

 1,490

 1,313

 1,427

 1,326

 1,229

 1,350

 12,270

 11,070

 10,950

 11,550

 11,070

 10,230

 10,470

 10,470

 11,070

 11,070

 10,830

 11,070

 14,070

 15,990

 14,910

 14,790

 14,310

 14,190

 14,070

 14,190

 14,190

 14,670

 13,710

 13,830

 13,950

 13,830

 15,170

 14,310

 14,670

 14,310

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2000 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 3, 2000

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS +5 34,455 391,280

ACRE-FEET +5 68,341 776,104

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 848,662

 3,953

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 89

 89

 80

 74

 61

 64

 76

 85

 42

 46

 43

 45

 55

 93

 95

 103

 94

 71

 45

 55

 82

 71

 75

 61

 65

 40

 68

 86

 87

 86

 2,126

 4,217

CORNING CANAL 4,217

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 68,341

TO SACTO RIVER 776,104
### Part III—Foreign Military Sales
No. 11,829.

#### Osborne *v.*Osmer.

Decided June 13, 1927.

Action for damages for trespass of cattle. Judgment for plaintiff.

*Affirmed.*

*On Application for Supersedeas.*

1. *Pence*— Animals—Trespass. The absence of a lawful fence does not justify a willful trespass.

2. *Damages*— Animals—Trespass. Pifty dollars damages for trespass of defendant’s cattle on plaintiff’s land held reasonable under the proof.

*Error to the District Court of Adams County, Hon. Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.*

Mr. Fred A. Harrison, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Pierpont Fodder, for defendant in error.

*Department Two.*

Mr. Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court.

Osmer, defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the district court, sued and recovered judgment against Osborne by way of damages for trespass upon plaintiff’s land. Osborne asks for a supersedeas.

Osborne owned a herd of cows and pastured them on plaintiff’s land without the latter’s consent. In doing so, defendant or his hired man, with defendant’s knowledge, took down and put up plaintiff’s gate to get de*81fendant’s cattle through to plaintiff’s land. Osborne was present mostly every morning for several months when this was done. There was other evidence of similar import.

1. Osborne seeks to justify his acts upon the ground that Osmer did not have a lawful fence. Such an answer has no merit in this case. The absence of a lawful fence does not justify a willful trespass. *Bell v. Gonzales,*35 Colo. 138, 83 Pac. 639, 117 Am. St. Rep. 179, 9 Ann. Cas. 1094; *Nuckolls v. Gaut,*12 Colo. 361, 363, 21 Pac. 41; *Norton v. Young,*6 Colo. App. 187, 189, 190, 40 Pac. 156; *Sweetman v. Cooper,*20 Colo. App. 5, 8, 76 Pac. 925.

2. Excessive damage is a subject discussed in the brief, but not assigned as error, in addition to which the damage was fixed by the trial court in the sum of fifty dollars, an amount which seems to us to be low, or very reasonable under the proof made.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Burke, Mr. Justice Butler and Mr. Justice Campbell concur.
---

Exhibit 99.14

March 31, 2017

CONSENT OF DONALD HICKSON

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

In connection with Silver Wheaton Corp.s (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual
Report), I, Donald (Don) Hickson, hereby consent to the inclusion in, or
incorporation by reference into, the Annual Report and the Companys
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-128128), Form F-10 (File No.
333-203682) and Form F-3D (File No. 333-194702), of the following:

| | 1. | Salobo Operations, Para State, Brazil, NI 43-101
      Technical Report that has an effective date of 31 December,
  2015.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yours truly,

|/s. Donald Hickson     | 
|---------------------- | 
|Donald Hickson, P.Eng. | 

---
### subpart 1—freedom of information fees
#### § 340.4 Methods of recovery of amounts recoverable.

An amount recoverable may be recovered by any one or a combination of the methods described in §§ 340.5, 340.6, 340.7, and 340.8.
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

DAY HIGH

 22,626

 24,341

 26,088

 28,384

 28,505

 28,082

 26,659

 26,188

 24,351

 21,151

 20,411

 18,790

 20,267

 20,314

 23,308

 25,704

 25,557

 19,623

 17,475

 16,295

 14,368

 14,958

 11,824

 7,131

 4,673

 3,347

 2,084

 1,172

 12,289

 11,279

 12,459

 13,371

 13,741

 12,968

 12,209

 12,456

 12,306

 10,593

 10,062

 10,416

 10,267

 9,996

 11,700

 13,129

 10,491

 6,249

 4,716

 2,328

 1,444

 1,940

 1,409

 852

 625

 575

 436

 409

 16,778

 16,979

 19,101

 20,633

 21,033

 20,928

 19,784

 19,734

 18,627

 16,015

 15,499

 14,580

 14,933

 14,697

 17,045

 19,237

 17,845

 13,437

 11,232

 9,484

 8,038

 8,343

 6,524

 3,920

 2,366

 1,453

 785

 568

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 1, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
Exhibit 10.3


 








John  E.  Outen - S Digitally signed by John E. Outen - S   Date:  2018.09.12  09:45:25 - 04'00'



      


     


    



SPECIAL  PROVISIONS Contract  No.  IIllSN272201300017C   Modification  No. 22 Page  2 of2 Beginning  with  the  effective date  of this  modification, ARTICLE  B.2.  ESTIMATED  COST  - OPTION  AND  ARTICLE  G.3  INVOICE  SUBMISSION /CONTRACT  FINANCING  REQUEST  IS REVISED ARTICLE  B.2.  ESTIMATED  COST - OPTION  10  is  revised  to  incorporate  changes  (a,  and b)  with  changes  in  the Option 10  table below: a. The  estimated  cost  of  this  contract is  increased  to  $43,034,602  with  the  addition of  Mad  and  Dosing  studies  with   additional  patients  as  described  in  Option  10  for $3,557  , 707. b. Payments  from  the  additional  funds  may  be  made  from  the  following  PRISM/NBS  Line Item  Numbers  as follows: PRISM/NBS Line  Item  No. Description PRISM/NBS Line  Item   Period of Performance Funded Amount 20 Mad  Studies  for  Yellow   Fever and  Marburg   program  changes  under   Option 10 08/10/2016 - 09/30/2022 $3,557,707 END OF  MODIFICATION  22  OF IIllSN272201300017C
128 STAT. 1910 PUBLIC LAW 113–176—SEPT. 26, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 120: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–577 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Sept. 8, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 10, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–176 

113th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the more than 5,000 slaves 

and free Black persons who fought for independence in the American Revolution. 

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, provides 

that the location of a commemorative work in Area I, as depicted 

on the map entitled ‘‘Commemorative Areas Washington, DC 

and Environs’’, numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, 

shall be deemed to be authorized only if a recommendation for 

that location is approved by law not later than 150 calendar 

days after Congress is notified of the recommendation; 

Whereas section 2860 of Public Law 112–239 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note) 

authorized the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish 

a memorial on Federal land in Area I or Area II, as depicted 

on such map, to honor the more than 5,000 slaves and free 

Black persons who fought for American independence in the 

Revolutionary War; and 

Whereas the Administrator of General Services has notified Congress of the Administrator’s determination that such memorial 

should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the location 

of a commemorative work to honor the more than 5,000 slaves 

and free Black persons who fought in the American Revolution, 

authorized by section 2860 of division B of Public Law 112–239 

(40 U.S.C. 8903 note), within Area I as described on the map 

entitled ‘‘Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs’’, 

numbered 869/86501 B and dated June 24, 2003, is approved. 

Approved September 26, 2014. 

40 USC 8903 

note. 

Sept. 26, 2014 

[H.J. Res. 120] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
### §6691. Supplement, not supplant

Funds made available under this subchapter shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for activities authorized under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title II, §2301, as added Pub. L. 114–95, title II, §2002, Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1953.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 6691, Pub. L. 89–10, title II, §2321, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title II, §201, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1660, authorized appropriations for subpart 1 of part C of former subchapter II of this chapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–95, §5, title II, §2002, Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1806, 1913, effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs.

A prior section 2301 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 6671 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 112–239.

Another prior section 2301 of Pub. L. 89–10 was classified to section 6671 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

#### **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.
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

 20,538

 18,672

 17,929

 15,757

 15,423

 17,500

 20,942

 20,691

 21,284

 22,648

 21,579

 21,742

 21,549

 22,284

 21,297

 19,086

 18,603

 18,653

 17,302

 17,054

 19,648

 21,062

 21,990

 21,609

 21,635

 22,405

 22,420

 22,827

 22,957

 21,638

 19,554

 2,530

 4,785

 5,485

 5,468

 5,404

 5,726

 6,506

 6,446

 5,269

 5,410

 4,585

 5,956

 6,529

 6,977

 7,096

 6,935

 7,224

 7,953

 8,163

 8,066

 8,729

 8,680

 8,992

 7,165

 7,763

 8,057

 8,306

 9,265

 9,497

 9,209

 8,819

 12,181

 11,676

 11,750

 10,954

 9,494

 9,535

 11,439

 11,951

 12,368

 12,924

 12,971

 13,346

 14,058

 14,088

 13,666

 13,050

 13,023

 13,249

 13,009

 12,214

 12,424

 13,121

 13,799

 14,017

 14,070

 14,688

 15,228

 15,998

 16,174

 15,497

 14,944

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 5, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
§ 403.120 How do you request testimony? ( a ) You must submit a written application for testimony of an SSA employee. Your application must- ( 1 ) Describe in detail the nature and relevance of the testimony sought in the legal proceeding;
( 2 ) Include a detailed explanation as to why you need the testimony, why you cannot obtain the information you need from an alternative source, and why providing it to you would be in SSA's interest; and
( 3 ) Provide the date and time that you need the testimony and the place where SSA would present it.
( b ) You must submit a complete application to SSA at least 30 days in advance of the date that you need the testimony. If your application is submitted fewer than 30 days before that date, you must provide, in addition to the requirements set out above, a detailed explanation as to why— ( 1 ) You did not apply in a timely fashion; and
( 2 ) It is in SSA's interest to review the untimely application.
( c ) You must send your application for testimony to: Office of the General Counsel, Office of General Law, Social Security Administration, Attn: Touhy Officer, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD, 21235. If you are requesting testimony of an employee of the Office of the Inspector General, send your application to the address in § 403.125.
( d ) The Commissioner has the sole discretion to waive any requirement in this section.
( e ) If your application does not include each of the items required by paragraph (a) of this section, we may return it to you for additional information. Unless the Commissioner waives one or more requirements, we will not process an incomplete or untimely application.
[66 FR 2809, Jan. 12, 2001; 66 FR 14316, Mar. 12, 2001, as amended at 73 FR 26002, May 8, 2008; 74 FR 16327, Apr. 10, 2009; 79 FR 7577, Feb. 10, 2014; 88 FR 1329, Jan. 10, 2023]
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

DAY HIGH

 8,834

 7,244

 7,174

 5,414

 4,542

 5,446

 4,864

 5,968

 5,863

 6,267

 6,615

 8,800

 8,856

 9,822

 6,619

 7,089

 6,288

 5,764

 4,986

 5,101

 6,302

 5,840

 5,502

 6,103

 6,854

 6,569

 6,031

 5,794

 1,732

 1,381

 1,525

 1,632

 1,275

 1,261

 1,252

 1,122

 1,061

 1,042

 1,193

 1,145

 1,493

 1,903

 1,386

 1,369

 1,181

 1,123

 1,371

 1,370

 1,650

 1,384

 1,010

 845

 859

 910

 846

 786

 4,609

 3,591

 3,506

 2,968

 2,668

 2,584

 2,399

 2,526

 2,811

 3,110

 3,695

 4,616

 4,482

 4,970

 4,202

 3,582

 3,012

 2,956

 2,770

 3,141

 3,000

 2,878

 2,321

 2,370

 2,656

 2,693

 2,640

 2,550

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2022 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### James R. McCauley *v.*The People of the State of Illinois.

Change of *venüe—by whom application should be made.*Where the petition for a change of venue is neither signed nor sworn to by the party in whose behalf the motion is made, the application should be denied. There is no statute authorizing any other person than the party himself to petition for a change of venue.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding.

*579Mr. M. B. Thompson, and Messrs. Sweet & Day, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. James K. Edsall, Attorney General, for the People.

Per Curiam :

When this case was called for trial, defendant entered a motion for a change of venue, on account of the prejudice of the judge presiding.

One objection taken is fatal to the application. The petition upon which the motion was based, was neither signed nor sworn to by defendant. There is no statute that authorizes any other person to petition for a change of venue on behalf of defendant, and the application was properly denied.

The other questions made are substantially the same as in *McCann*v. *The People, ante,*103, and are decided in the same way.

The judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
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

 14,809

 20,542

 21,616

 22,883

 23,867

 24,411

 24,591

 24,625

 23,224

 23,748

 0

 18,355

 23,274

 23,374

 21,636

 21,563

 22,646

 23,035

 24,004

 24,837

 27,151

 27,863

 27,129

 25,803

 25,617

 24,018

 22,273

 22,076

 19,692

 18,102

 22,160

 6,780

 8,673

 8,564

 9,880

 10,095

 8,893

 9,229

 8,139

 8,179

 9,210

 0

 10,383

 10,363

 10,417

 10,476

 10,494

 10,449

 11,194

 10,619

 10,984

 11,861

 10,955

 10,489

 10,027

 9,547

 9,725

 7,738

 10,997

 8,988

 5,220

 8,653

 10,685

 12,484

 12,822

 13,547

 14,941

 15,392

 16,100

 15,065

 14,968

 15,947

 0

 15,412

 16,943

 16,706

 16,685

 15,626

 15,070

 15,612

 16,271

 17,335

 18,951

 18,366

 17,803

 17,418

 16,875

 16,066

 14,806

 16,924

 14,614

 13,174

 13,700

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 13, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
# Fly Smart and Safe LED and Inspire Reference Guide

COMPLETE CONTROLLER STEPS FIRST Power on Inspire 1 Ensure link to Controller Transform to landing mode Power off Inspire 1 Attach and lock Camera and Gimbal Insert Camera Card and format Power on Inspire 1 Ensure Link to Controller Firmware up to date Battery Charged Calibrate Compass if needed Inspire placed in safe launch area Propellers Tight and Locks applied Area Clear of people 

## Inspire 1 

# Pre-Flight

Attach iPad or iPhone Firmware up to date Battery charged Antennas Aligned Vertically Identify Master/Slave Device hood attached Strong satellite connections P-GPS or P-OPTI or P-ATTI mode 

## Controller



# Flight

Post-Flight

Warn bystanders of take off Safe to Fly on Pilot App Confirmed Initiate launch sequence Hover for 20 seconds Inspect Inspire 1 for defects Confirm all movement directions Confirm battery level Monitor signal strength Keep line of sight

Warn bystanders of landing Landing zone clear and safe Init landing sequence or RTH Allow rotors to complete stop Stop recording Power down Inspire 1 Remove Rotors Remove Camera and Gimbal Power on Inspire 1 Transform to travel mode Power off Inspire 1 

## Inspire 1

COMPLETE INSPIRE 1 CHECKLIST FIRST Power off controllers Remove iPad or iPhone from cradle Fold cradle Stow antennas 

## Controller P-GPS: GPS and Vision Pos = true
, GPS pos

= true P-OPTI: Vision Pos = true
, GPS = false

. Vision Positioning only for hovering P-ATTI: GPS = false, Vision Pos = false barometer only to pos. Alti only control A-mode(Attitude): aircraft using only its barometer to position. Only altitude controlled. RTH still functions if GPS available. 

# For Safe Operation of DJI Inspire 1

Leave launch area as you found it
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

 237

 247

 239

 239

 237

 238

 236

 237

 238

 253

 248

 270

 251

 238

 238

 233

 234

 233

 234

 230

 228

 226

 227

 229

 236

 249

 258

 240

 221

 207

 205

 220

 222

 224

 225

 226

 225

 226

 228

 229

 223

 223

 218

 215

 212

 217

 217

 221

 217

 215

 211

 211

 209

 205

 202

 205

 203

 203

 196

 194

 192

 191

 225

 229

 231

 232

 231

 231

 230

 230

 233

 235

 234

 237

 229

 223

 222

 223

 225

 223

 222

 218

 215

 214

 212

 210

 212

 216

 221

 216

 205

 197

 198

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 4, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 260.8 Pre-hearing case review. ( a ) *General.* The hearings officer assigned to a case may, prior to an oral hearing, upon his or her own motion, refer the case back to the office of the Board which issued the initial decision for the purpose of reconsideration of that decision, where the hearings officer finds that: ( 1 ) Additional evidence pertinent to the resolution of the issues on appeal was submitted by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed, or subsequent thereto; or
( 2 ) Additional evidence pertinent to the resolution of the issues on appeal is available and should be procured; or
( 3 ) There is some other indication in the record that the initial decision may be revised in a manner favorable to the appellant.
( b ) *Referral of case for further review by initial adjudicating unit.* Where the hearings officer finds that referral of a case back to the office which issued the initial decision for the purpose of reconsideration of that decision would be warranted, the hearings officer shall give that office the reason for such referral, together with specific directions as to the handling of the case on reconsideration.
( c ) *Reconsideration of case by initial adjudicating unit.* The office to which a case is referred shall promptly undertake any additional development required, and shall make a determination as to whether the initial determination may be revised in whole or in part in a manner favorable to the appellant. Upon issuance of its determination, the office in question shall return the case along with a copy of its decision to the hearings officer.
( d ) *Revision of initial decision in whole or in part.* Where the office to which a case is referred determines to revise its initial decision in whole or in part, that office shall notify the appellant of such determination. If the revised determination is wholly favorable to the appellant, he or she shall be notified that the appeal to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals will be dismissed by the hearings officer assigned to the case. If the revised decision is partially favorable to the appellant, the notice shall inform the appellant that the hearings officer will proceed with the portion of the appellant's case not revised in his or her favor, unless the appellant should request dismissal of the appeal.
( e ) *Timely conduct of oral hearing.* The fact that a case on appeal has been referred back to the office which issued the initial decision in the case shall not delay the conduct of a hearing scheduled with respect to the appeal, unless the appellant agrees to a delay. If it appears that the office to which a case has been referred will not have completed its reconsideration of the case prior to the date of a scheduled hearing on an appeal and the appellant has not agreed to a delay in the conduct of the hearing, the hearings officer shall proceed with the hearing and the handling of the case as though the case had not been referred back to the office.
[47 FR 36809, Aug. 24, 1982, as amended at 67 FR 77155, Dec. 17, 2002]
EXHIBIT 3.3
 CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
OF
CAPELLA HOLDINGS OF OKLAHOMA, LLC
      th
 Cape Holdings of Oklahoma, LLC/s/ D. Andrew SlusserD. Andrew Slusser, Authorized Person STATE OF DELAWARESECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSDELIVERED 03:48 PM 01/22/2007FILED 03:25 PM 01/22/2007SRV 070069497  4288637 FILE