alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 16

- 00 309

- C R



### ____________________

KRISTEN WESTFALL MADDOX

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 1A District Court

Tyler County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 12,856

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

ORDER

Counsel for Kristen Westfall Maddox requested access to the sealed juror

information filed in this appeal . The State did not file an objection.

It is, therefore, ORDER ED that Scott W. Stover , counsel on appeal for the

appellan t, Kristen Westfall Maddox , be allowed to personally inspect and view the

sealed exhibits on file in th is appeal . Appellate counsel may personally inspect and

view the sealed record at the Ninth Court of Appeals, Jefferson County Courthouse,

1001 Pearl Street, Suite 330, Beaumont, Texas, by appointment during the Court’s2

regular business hours, or in t he 1A District Court of Tyler County, Texas, by

appointment with the trial court clerk

. The trial court and the clerk shall assist the

Court in ensuring that appellate counsel can perso nally inspect the sealed record . No

images or copies may be made of any sealed document.

ORDER ENTERED February 9, 2017

.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
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 HIGH

 78

 77

 61

 65

 70

 74

 74

 75

 73

 67

 62

 62

 62

 63

 63

 65

 65

 66

 65

 65

 66

 64

 64

 65

 64

 60

 60

 61

 60

 59

 76

 60

 59

 61

 65

 67

 65

 70

 68

 62

 61

 62

 62

 62

 62

 62

 62

 66

 64

 63

 63

 63

 62

 63

 58

 58

 58

 58

 59

 58

 77

 66

 60

 63

 67

 69

 67

 72

 69

 64

 62

 62

 62

 62

 62

 63

 63

 66

 65

 64

 65

 63

 63

 64

 61

 59

 59

 59

 59

 59

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 1, 2018

HIGH LOW MEAN

 67.8

 65.0

 58.0

 58.0

 57.0

 56.1

 57.3

 58.5

 58.1

 57.9

 56.7

 56.1

 56.5

 57.5

 58.5

 56.9

 55.1

 55.2

 55.4

 57.3

 58.4

 58.8

 59.2

 59.3

 59.2

 58.9

 58.1

 57.5

 56.4

 56.9

 62.0

 57.5

 55.7

 55.7

 55.9

 55.3

 55.2

 55.9

 55.9

 56.6

 55.3

 54.2

 54.0

 54.8

 56.0

 54.4

 52.9

 54.0

 52.8

 54.4

 55.6

 56.4

 56.7

 56.8

 56.8

 56.7

 56.2

 55.6

 55.1

 54.4

 64.8

 61.5

 57.0

 56.8

 56.5

 55.7

 56.2

 57.3

 57.1

 57.3

 55.9

 55.2

 55.3

 56.1

 57.1

 55.9

 54.1

 54.6

 54.2

 55.9

 57.0

 57.5

 57.9

 58.0

 58.1

 57.7

 57.1

 56.5

 55.8

 55.6

HIGH LOW MEAN

 9.6

 10.4

 10.6

 10.7

 10.7

 10.6

 10.4

 10.4

 10.5

 10.6

 10.8

 10.9

 11.0

 11.0

 10.8

 10.7

 10.9

 10.9

 10.9

 10.9

 10.7

 10.6

 10.6

 10.5

 10.5

 10.5

 10.5

 10.5

 10.6

 10.6

 8.6

 8.7

 10.4

 10.4

 10.4

 10.3

 10.3

 10.0

 10.3

 10.4

 10.5

 10.8

 10.8

 10.7

 10.5

 10.5

 10.7

 10.6

 10.7

 10.5

 10.4

 10.3

 10.3

 10.2

 10.1

 10.1

 10.2

 10.3

 10.2

 10.3

 9.0

 9.5

 10.4

 10.5

 10.5

 10.4

 10.3

 10.1

 10.4

 10.5

 10.6

 10.8

 10.9

 10.9

 10.7

 10.6

 10.8

 10.8

 10.8

 10.7

 10.6

 10.5

 10.4

 10.4

 10.3

 10.3

 10.3

 10.4

 10.4

 10.5

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION Date: August 28, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Final Technical Support Document and Final Regulatory Impact Analysis

FROM: Anthony Neam, Assessment and Standards Divisi on

TO: EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memorandum is just to point to the attached PD F files which are the final TSD and RIA for the rulemaking.
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 HIGH

 549

 512

 562

 568

 555

 553

 584

 601

 635

 767

 752

 760

 819

 849

 884

 896

 903

 905

 899

 904

 895

 885

 885

 874

 885

 910

 927

 944

 912

 968

 451

 429

 423

 422

 414

 396

 386

 380

 371

 379

 369

 380

 378

 375

 376

 379

 389

 381

 388

 382

 392

 396

 397

 407

 412

 403

 417

 424

 422

 431

 473

 454

 464

 464

 457

 440

 434

 432

 440

 517

 498

 508

 530

 539

 537

 557

 551

 561

 576

 575

 566

 566

 574

 570

 563

 568

 569

 563

 561

 625

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 15, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
#### James W. Ramsey *v.*Elisha Barnabee.

*Exemption—whether part of machine is exempt.*Where a mower, to which was attached what was called a “ reaper attachment,” was levied on, and the whole exceeded in value the exemption the debtor could claim, but the mower alone did not, and the proof showed the machine could readily be separated, and that the mower was a complete machine without the attachment, and one could be bought without the other, it was *held,*that the mower alone might be selected as exempt.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. O. T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of trespass, by Elisha Barnabee against James W. Ramsey, to recover the penalty for the sale of exempt property under execution by the defendant, as constable. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a plea justifying the taking and sale of the property (a mower), as constable, under an execution against the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied, *136to the last plea, that the property was exempt from levy on execution. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment against the defendant, for $300.

Messrs. Beach *&*Kinnear, for the appellant.

Messrs. Sample & Torrence, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This action was in trespass, to recover a penalty for levying upon and selling property exempted from levy and sale under the provisions of the statute. Among the property seized was a mower, and one point made against the verdict is, that the mower had what is called a *“*reaper attachment,” and both combined exceeded in value the amount the debtor could claim under the statute as being exempt from sale. Only the mower is claimed as exempt, and that alone does not exceed in value the amount of property which the statute declares shall be exempt from levy and sale. It is proven the machines can readily be separated, that the mower is a complete machine without the reaper attachment, and that one may be bought without the other.

Whether the property claimed was suitable to the debtor’s condition in life, was a question for the jury, and they having found that it was, no reason is perceived for disturbing the verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 345.201 Individual employer record defined.

Effective January 1, 1990, the Board will establish and maintain a record, hereinafter known as an Individual Employer Record, for each employer subject to this part. As used in this subpart, “Individual Employer Record” means a record of each employer's benefit ratio; reserve ratio; 1-year compensation base; 3-year compensation base; unallocated charge; reserve balance; net cumulative contribution balance; and cumulative benefit balance. See § 345.302 of this part for a definition of these terms. Whenever a new employer begins paying compensation with respect to which contributions are payable under this part, the Board will establish and maintain an individual employer record for such employer.
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 ELEVATION

 239.23

 239.09

 238.99

 238.87

 238.81

 238.79

 238.76

 238.71

 238.66

 238.61

 238.58

 238.56

 238.53

 238.53

 238.95

 238.98

 238.83

 238.85

 238.81

 239.10

 240.92

 239.72

 239.63

 239.32

 239.21

 238.98

 238.90

 239.01

 378

 361

 349

 337

 331

 329

 326

 320

 315

 310

 307

 305

 302

 302

 345

 348

 333

 335

 331

 362

 597

 436

 426

 388

 375

 348

 340

 351

STORAGE

-43

-17

-12

-12

-6

-2

-3

-6

-5

-5

-3

-2

-3

+0

+43

+3

-15

+2

-4

+31

+235

-161

-10

-38

-13

-27

-8

+11

CHANGE

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 48

 45

 54

 62

 62

 62

 63

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 7,440

 7,140

 6,680

 6,550

 6,430

 6,310

 6,220

 6,160

 6,050

 5,940

 5,930

 5,830

 5,890

 9,470

 7,460

 6,760

 6,640

 6,660

 7,220

 13,330

 10,800

 9,180

 8,250

 7,380

 7,220

 6,890

 6,780

 15,100

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2005 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 12, 2005

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS -70 396 211,710

ACRE-FEET -70 785 419,927

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 420,823

 421

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 17

 16

 16

 7

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 56

 111

CORNING CANAL 111

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 785

TO SACTO RIVER 419,927

Table 9
§ 404.960 Vacating a dismissal of a request for a hearing before an administrative law judge. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council may vacate a dismissal of a request for a hearing if you request that we vacate the dismissal. If you or another party wish to make this request, you must do so within 60 days of the date you receive notice of the dismissal, and you must state why our dismissal of your request for a hearing was erroneous. The administrative law judge or Appeals Council will inform you in writing of the action taken on your request. The Appeals Council may also vacate a dismissal of a request for a hearing on its own motion. If the Appeals Council decides to vacate a dismissal on its own motion, it will do so within 60 days of the date we mail the notice of dismissal and will inform you in writing that it vacated the dismissal.
( b ) If you wish to proceed with a hearing after you received a fully favorable revised determination under the prehearing case review process in § 404.941, you must follow the procedures in § 404.941(d) to request that an administrative law judge vacate his or her order dismissing your request for a hearing.
[76 FR 65370, Oct. 21, 2011]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6842

THEODORE LEONARD SZAFRANSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. K. KELLY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; A. M. PARKER, JR., Superintendent,Greensville Correctional Center; R. LANN, Investigator, Greensville Correctional Center;F. SPENCE, Administrator, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-273-R) Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Leonard Szafranski, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, since amendment to Appellant’s complaint could not cure the “defects” the district court found in his case, the district court’s dismissal is a final, appealable order. Id. at 1066-67. 2 PER CURIAM: Theodore Leonard Szafranski appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint without prejudice* and the district court’s order denying relief onhis motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Szafranski v. Kelly , No. CA-98-273-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 24, 1998; June 1, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON, DC Chandler Air Service, COMPLAINANT

v. City ofChandler, AZ FAADocketNo.16-13-05 RESPONDENT.

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFRPart 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to February 17, 2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case. 

# 'h ..•..

**~/d/16** DATECERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



### . ·-fL-. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January /



## ~ , 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to February 17, 2016 for FAA Docket 16-13-08 addressed to: Timothy I. McCulloch Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP 2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 750 Phoenix, AZ 85016 W. Eric Pilsk Daniel S. Reimer Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP 101 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 FAAPart 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 FAAAirports District Office, Phoenix, AZ



# {!!}~'fN~ Claudia Roberts

**~~·~**..,. Office ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis
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 HIGH

 27,133

 28,383

 28,494

 29,023

 28,686

 29,184

 29,755

 28,751

 28,260

 26,066

 26,635

 26,645

 26,938

 28,048

 28,914

 29,174

 29,315

 29,046

 29,538

 29,734

 27,164

 26,022

 28,007

 26,499

 25,559

 26,730

 29,766

 30,129

 29,284

 29,027

 16,974

 17,603

 16,606

 16,173

 16,596

 15,787

 15,918

 16,931

 17,274

 17,730

 18,310

 17,909

 17,885

 18,090

 18,286

 18,083

 17,438

 17,047

 17,245

 17,244

 17,222

 14,532

 15,315

 16,825

 16,122

 15,816

 19,995

 20,548

 18,667

 18,276

 22,081

 22,881

 22,591

 22,840

 22,696

 22,760

 23,270

 23,301

 23,149

 23,001

 22,461

 22,069

 21,864

 22,586

 23,424

 23,678

 23,479

 23,290

 23,523

 24,084

 22,560

 20,809

 22,677

 22,695

 21,992

 22,323

 24,219

 24,922

 23,876

 23,638

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 21, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
### §10004. Uses of funds by institutions of higher education

#### (a) In general

A public institution of higher education that receives funds under this chapter shall use the funds for education and general expenditures, and in such a way as to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-State students, or for modernization, renovation, or repair of institution of higher education facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing, including modernization, renovation, and repairs that are consistent with a recognized green building rating system.

#### (b) Prohibition

An institution of higher education may not use funds received under this chapter to increase its endowment.

#### (c) Additional prohibition

No funds awarded under this chapter may be used for—

(1) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities;

(2) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; or

(3) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—

(A) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or

(B) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.

(Pub. L. 111–5, div. A, title XIV, §14004, Feb. 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 281.)
### §§241c–1 to 241c–5. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–561, title I, §101(c), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2200

Section 241c–1, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title II, §121, as added Aug. 21, 1974, Pub. L. 93–380, title I, §101(a)(2)(E), 88 Stat. 491, provided for programs for handicapped children.

Another section 121 of act Sept. 30, 1950, as added by Pub. L. 91–230, title I, §113(b)(6), Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 126, and renumbered section "126" by Pub. L. 93–380, was classified to section 241d of this title.

Section 241c–2, act Sept. 30, 1950, title II, §122, as added Aug. 21, 1974, Pub. L. 93–380, title I, §101(a)(2)(E), 88 Stat. 492, provided for programs for migratory children.

Another section 122 of act Sept. 30, 1950, as added by Pub. L. 91–230, title I, §113(b)(6), Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 126, and renumbered section "127" by Pub. L. 93–380, was classified to section 241d–1 of this title.

Section 241c–3, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title II, §123, as added Aug. 21, 1974, Pub. L. 93–380, title I, §101(a)(2)(E), 88 Stat. 494, provided for programs for neglected or delinquent children.

Another section 123 of act Sept. 30, 1950, as added by Pub. L. 91–230, title I, §113(b)(6), Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 127, and renumbered section "128" by Pub. L. 93–380, was classified to section 241d–2 of this title.

Section 241c–4, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title II, §124, as added Aug. 21, 1974, Pub. L. 93–380, title I, §101(a)(2)(E), 88 Stat. 494, provided for the reservation of funds for territories.

Section 241c–5, act Sept. 30, 1950, ch. 1124, title II, §125, as added Aug. 21, 1974, Pub. L. 93–380, title I, §101(a)(2)(E), 88 Stat. 495, and amended Apr. 21, 1976, Pub. L. 94–273, §3(8), 90 Stat. 376; Oct. 12, 1976, Pub. L. 94–482, title V, §501(b)(1)(A), (o), 90 Stat. 2236, 2238; Sept. 24, 1977, Pub. L. 95–112, §2(a)(1), 91 Stat. 911, related to minimum payments for State operated programs.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 1530(a) of Pub. L. 95–561, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1221e–3 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

 13,314

 13,003

 12,666

 12,813

 13,359

 13,756

 13,485

 12,468

 14,897

 14,690

 12,293

 10,274

 9,298

 6,906

 4,257

 3,951

 4,220

 5,556

 6,864

 8,061

 8,702

 7,959

 8,967

 10,441

 7,159

 3,045

 965

 623

 820

 1,355

 570

 6,059

 6,432

 5,959

 5,958

 6,082

 6,360

 5,884

 5,171

 4,314

 4,759

 3,580

 2,732

 2,211

 2,026

 859

 740

 648

 696

 713

 578

 765

 670

 575

 773

 592

 538

 359

 339

 424

 315

 287

 10,331

 9,831

 9,423

 9,421

 9,436

 9,877

 9,550

 8,545

 8,454

 9,612

 7,398

 5,937

 5,075

 4,421

 2,562

 1,998

 1,757

 1,847

 2,238

 2,497

 2,795

 2,605

 3,111

 4,038

 2,533

 1,264

 686

 512

 542

 578

 379

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 15, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §2520. Military training and service exemption

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law or regulation, service in the Peace Corps as a volunteer shall not in any way exempt such volunteer from the performance of any obligations or duties under the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act [50 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 87–293, title I, §23, Sept. 22, 1961, 75 Stat. 624.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Universal Military Training and Service Act, referred to in text, subsequently renamed the Military Selective Service Act, is act June 24, 1948, ch. 625, 62 Stat. 604, which is classified principally to chapter 49 (§3801 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
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 ELEVATION

 239.17

 239.24

 239.12

 239.07

 239.10

 239.10

 239.12

 239.04

 239.02

 239.29

 239.36

 239.39

 239.38

 239.10

 239.09

 239.12

 239.09

 239.10

 238.82

 238.82

 238.83

 238.84

 238.82

 238.84

 238.83

 238.74

 238.85

 238.86

 238.95

 238.83

 238.87

 370

 379

 364

 358

 362

 362

 364

 355

 352

 385

 393

 397

 396

 362

 361

 364

 361

 362

 332

 332

 333

 334

 332

 334

 333

 323

 335

 336

 345

 333

 337

STORAGE

-5

+9

-15

-6

+4

+0

+2

-9

-3

+33

+8

+4

-1

-34

-1

+3

-3

+1

-30

+0

+1

+1

-2

+2

-1

-10

+12

+1

+9

-12

+4

CHANGE

 249

 226

 97

 183

 132

 146

 185

 260

 249

 132

 224

 216

 182

 198

 190

 183

 120

 224

 217

 171

 176

 180

 184

 143

 186

 177

 119

 81

 36

 39

 38

 8,954

 8,341

 8,450

 8,332

 8,570

 8,364

 8,293

 8,187

 8,446

 9,368

 9,576

 9,755

 9,394

 8,490

 8,505

 8,563

 8,618

 8,689

 7,655

 7,563

 7,530

 7,828

 7,561

 7,578

 7,527

 7,275

 7,711

 7,562

 7,690

 7,757

 7,890

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2005 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 14, 2006

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS -38 5,143 256,022

ACRE-FEET -38 10,201 507,820

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 519,586

 375

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S.

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 48

 33

 22

 35

 28

 40

 42

 33

 45

 20

 30

 29

 34

 22

 35

 34

 22

 17

 27

 25

 25

 21

 15

 19

 17

 18

 21

 17

 7

 6

 2

 789

 1,565

CORNING CANAL 1,565

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 10,201

TO SACTO RIVER 507,820

Table 9