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

 178

 180

 180

 180

 186

 194

 191

 191

 191

 197

 199

 189

 191

 185

 187

 187

 193

 192

 190

 190

 190

 186

 185

 186

 190

 189

 193

 192

 195

 199

 207

 169

 169

 170

 171

 167

 173

 171

 175

 175

 177

 178

 181

 178

 174

 168

 170

 171

 173

 175

 179

 179

 176

 176

 178

 179

 180

 181

 181

 184

 184

 177

 172

 172

 174

 174

 176

 178

 178

 179

 180

 182

 185

 185

 184

 181

 179

 177

 178

 179

 180

 182

 182

 180

 180

 181

 181

 182

 184

 185

 187

 188

 187

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Oakmont Acquisition Corporation (the Registrant) for the
year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

Date: June 14, 2007



| |  |                              |  |  |  | 
| |  | ---------------------------- |  |  |  | 
| |  | /s/ Michael C. Azar          |  |  |  | 
| |  | Michael C. Azar              |  |  |  | 
| |  | Principal Accounting Officer |  |  |  |
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9737]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 301

[TD 9518]
RIN 1545-BJ52


Specified Tax Return Preparers Required To File Individual Income 
Tax Returns Using Magnetic Media; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document describes a correction to final regulations (TD 
9518) that were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, March 
30, 2011 (76 FR 17521) providing guidance to specified tax return 
preparers who prepare and file individual income tax returns using 
magnetic media pursuant to section 6011(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

DATES: This correction is effective on April 22, 2011, and is 
applicable to individual income tax returns filed after December 31, 
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith L. Brau, (202) 622-4940 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are 
under section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, final regulations (TD 9518) contain an error that may 
prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9518) 
which were the subject of FR Doc. 2011-7571 is corrected as follows:
    On page 17528, column 2, under CFR Part Heading ``PART 301--
PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION'', the language ``Par. 4. The authority 
citation for part 301 is amended by adding an entries in numerical 
order to read, in part, as follows:'' is corrected to read ``Par. 4. 
The authority citation for part 301 is amended by adding entries in 
numerical order to read, in part, as follows:''.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2011-9737 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

     I, Stanley J. Talbi, the Chief Financial Officer of The Travelers Insurance
Company (the "Company"), certify that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: November 18, 2005

                                          By: /s/ Stanley J. Talbi
                                              ---------------------------------
                                                      Stanley J. Talbi
                                                 Senior Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer













     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Travelers Insurance Company and will be retained by The
Travelers Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 404.1644 How and when we determine whether the processing time standards are met. ( a ) *How we determine processing times.* For all initial title II cases, we calculate the mean number of days, including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, from the day the case folder is received in the State agency until the day it is released to us by the State agency. For initial title XVI cases, we calculate the mean number of days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, from the day the case folder is received in the State agency until the day there is a systems input of a presumptive disability decision or the day the case folder is released to us by the State agency, whichever is earlier.
( b ) *Frequency of review.* Title II processing times and title XVI processing times are monitored separately on a quarterly basis. The determination as to whether or not the processing time thresholds have been met is made at the end of each quarter each year. Quarterly State-by-State mean processing times are compared with the threshold levels for both title II and title XVI.
[46 FR 29204, May 29, 1981, as amended at 56 FR 11020, Mar. 14, 1991]
### §1932. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–472, ch. II, §204(k), May 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 138

Section, act Aug. 26, 1954, ch. 937, ch. II, §412, as added July 24, 1959, Pub. L. 86–108, ch. II, §205(l), 73 Stat. 250, authorized appropriations for President's special education and training fund.

A prior section 412 of act Aug. 26, 1954, which authorized assistance to selected Chinese and Korean students for studying or teaching, or for research and related academic and technical activities in the United States, was repealed by Pub. L. 85–141, §8(l), Aug. 14, 1957, 71 Stat. 362.
### SUBCHAPTER I—SANCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO NATIONAL EMERGENCY RELATING TO FENTANYL TRAFFICKING
#### § 408.515 When do we make SVB payments?

SVB payments are made on the first day of each month and represent payment for that month. If the first day of the month falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal legal holiday, payment will be made on the first day preceding such day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal legal holiday.
The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western * District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1419EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Monty R. Hobbs; Patte A. Hobbs, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants. *

_____________ Submitted: November 17, 1998

Filed: November 27, 1998

_____________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, District * Judge.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Monty R. Hobbs and Patte A. Hobbs operated a successful constructio n business. In 1990 and 1991, the Hobbses filed fraudulent joint personal income ta x retur ns and a jury convicted them for aiding and abetting in false tax returns. W e affirm.-2-

Ini tially, the Hobbses contend the evidence does not support their convictions. The Government offered into evidence checks totaling more than one million dollars written to the Hobbses for homes built in 1990 and 1991, personal profit and los s statements showing the H obbses’ annual net income for 1990 and 1991 exceeded one hundre d thousand dollars, and signed tax returns the Hobbses submitted to lendin g institutions listing su

bstantially greater incomes than the returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Also, former employees testified about the Hobbses’ fraudulent tax plans. Having reviewed the record, we conclude sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find the Hobbses guilty beyond a reasonable d oubt. See United States v. Bussey , 942 F.2d 1241, 1251 (8th Cir. 1991). Next, the Hobbses contend the Government improperly questioned Monty Hobb s about his views on the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. They also claim the district court erroneously failed to give a curative instruction or declare a mistrial sua sponte following the question. The district court sustained the Hobbses’ objection t o the unanswered question, and they did not ask the district court for th e relief they now seek, so we review for plain error and find none. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).
Final ly, the Hobbses assert the district court improperly instructed the jury o n willful bli ndness. The Hobbses claim they are innocent because they relied on thei r accountant to set up their business and to file their tax returns, and they had no reason to believe their accountant acted fraudulently. After considering the recor d and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, we find no error i n the district court’s instruction. See Bussey , 942 F.2d at 1246- 48. Even if we assume an error, we believe the error was harmles s given the overwhelming evidence against the Hobbses. See Mattingly v. United States , 924 F.2d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 1991).
We affirm the Hobbses’ convictions.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit
23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-130399) pertaining to
the James River Group, Inc. 2003 Incentive Plan and the James River
Group, Inc. 2005 Incentive Plan of our report dated February 13, 2006,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of
James River Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December  31,  2005.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Richmond, VirginiaMarch
24, 2006

---
### §§249 to 250f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 249, act Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 616, §1, 53 Stat. 1290, which related to utilization of services of government agencies to promote inter-American relations, was transferred to section 501 of this title.

Section 249a, act Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 616, §2, 53 Stat. 1290, which related to creation of advisory committees, was transferred to section 502 of this title.

Section 250, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §1, 54 Stat. 396, which related to military and naval assistance to governments of American republics, was transferred to section 521 of this title.

Section 250a, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §2, 54 Stat. 396, which related to transmission of information relating to implements of war, was transferred to section 522 of this title.

Section 250b, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §3, 54 Stat. 397, which related to contract restrictions against disposal of implements of war, was transferred to section 523 of this title.

Section 250c, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §4, 54 Stat. 397, which related to information on shipments to be given chairman of National Munitions Control Board, was transferred to section 524 of this title.

Section 250d, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §5, 54 Stat. 397, which related to appropriations and dispositions of receipts, was transferred to section 525 of this title.

Section 250e, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §6, 54 Stat. 397, which related to protection of patent rights, was transferred to section 526 of this title.

Section 250f, act June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §7, 54 Stat. 397, which related to purchases of implements of war from American republics, was transferred to section 527 of this title.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.38

             AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO COMPENSATION CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

        This Amendment No. 2 to Compensation Continuation Agreement is dated as
of January 29, 2002 (the "Amendment") by and between Identix Incorporated, a
Delaware corporation ("Identix" or the "Company"), and James P. Scullion
("Employee").

        WHEREAS, Identix and Employee entered into that certain Compensation
Continuation Agreement dated as of January 5, 2000, as amended August 22, 2001
(the "Agreement") and desire in accordance with Section 10(i) of the Agreement
to make certain amendments thereto:

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:

        1. Term of Agreement. Section 1(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:

                "(c) `Expiration Date' means January 29, 2004."

        2. Effect. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment No. 2, the
Agreement has not been amended or modified and, as amended hereby, shall remain
in full force and effect.

        3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in duplicate
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.

IDENTIX INCORPORATED            EMPLOYEE



By   /s/ Robert McCashin                    By   /s/ James P. Scullion
  ---------------------------------           ----------------------------------
     Name:  Robert McCashin                      Name:  James P. Scullion
     Title: Chairman and CEO
§ 404.1330 Who is a member of a uniformed service. A member of a uniformed service is an individual who served on active duty after 1956. You are a member of a uniformed service if you— ( a ) Are appointed, enlisted, or inducted into— ( 1 ) The Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, or Marine Corps; or
( 2 ) A reserve component of the uniformed services in paragraph (a)(1) of this section (except the Coast Guard Reserve as a temporary member);
( b ) Served in the Army or Air Force under call or conscription;
( c ) Are a commissioned officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its predecessors, the Environmental Science Services Administration and the Coast and Geodetic Survey;
( d ) Are a commissioned officer of the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service;
( e ) Are a retired member of any of the above services;
( f ) Are a member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve;
( g ) Are a cadet at the United States Military Academy, Air Force Academy, or Coast Guard Academy, or a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy; or
( h ) Are a member of the Reserve Officers Training Corps of the Army, Navy or Air Force, when ordered to annual training duty for at least 14 days and while performing official travel to and from that duty.
488 P.2d 107

#### STATE of New Mexico, Respondent, v. Loarn Anthony BiSWELL, Relator.

No. 9307.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 17, 1971.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 611, 83 N.M. 65, 488 P.2d 115, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
Exhibit (32.1)





Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350

For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned, Bruce H. March, the chief executive officer of Imperial Oil Limited (the company), hereby certifies that to his knowledge:



|(i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the company for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 24, 2009



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|/s/ Bruce H. March                                                                        
|Bruce H. March                                                                            
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 404.919 Notice of another person's request for reconsideration.

If any other person files a request for reconsideration of the initial determination in your case, we shall notify you at your last known address before we reconsider the initial determination. We shall also give you an opportunity to present any evidence you think helpful to the reconsidered determination.

[45 FR 52081, Aug. 5, 1980. Redesignated at 51 FR 302, Jan. 3, 1986]
#### Alonzo Lee TAYLOR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Linda L. MELCHING; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-17416.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 21, 2006.

Alonzo Lee Taylor, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Frank G. Tiesen, Deputy Atty. General, Office of County Counsel, Salinas, CA, Austin Jacobs Cattermole, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, 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 **

Alonzo Lee Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants denied him due process and access to courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s orders. *Nelson v. Heiss,*271 F.3d 891, 893 *755(9th Cir.2001) (dismissed under 12(b)(6)); *Calhoun v. Stahl,*254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly concluded that Taylor failed to state a due process claim with respect to the confiscation of his personal property because the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 536, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); *see also Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (1994) (per curiam) (“California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending the outcome of defendants’ motion to dismiss as Taylor does not show how the failure to pursue discovery resulted in actual and substantial prejudice. *See Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court erred, however, by dismissing Taylor’s access to courts claims at the screening stage. Taylor alleged that the state court appointed an investigator to aid him in his state habeas proceeding, that he had the permission of the warden for confidential legal visits with the investigator, that prison personnel nevertheless refused to mail his correspondence, that he grieved the refusal and prevailed and that prison personnel still refused to mail his letter to the investigator. These allegations are sufficient to survive review under the screening provision and require the government to respond. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915A; *see also Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

Taylor’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.

**

 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.
### SUBCHAPTER III—ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIALISTS
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

 81

 67

 71

 70

 73

 78

 74

 68

 68

 74

 71

 74

 68

 65

 69

 67

 66

 73

 66

 72

 74

 73

 71

 73

 75

 74

 79

 74

 83

 80

 76

 63

 63

 65

 67

 70

 72

 68

 66

 65

 65

 64

 63

 64

 64

 65

 65

 65

 62

 56

 53

 71

 71

 70

 71

 71

 71

 72

 72

 73

 73

 73

 68

 65

 67

 68

 72

 74

 71

 67

 66

 67

 66

 66

 65

 65

 66

 65

 66

 65

 62

 64

 72

 71

 71

 72

 73

 73

 74

 73

 75

 74

 74

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 1, 2021

HIGH LOW MEAN

 65.0

 64.4

 66.2

 68.9

 72.1

 72.7

 70.4

 67.6

 67.9

 68.3

 66.6

 63.2

 62.4

 62.7

 62.9

 62.9

 63.7

 64.3

 63.6

 65.5

 62.7

 63.1

 64.1

 66.3

 67.8

 67.8

 67.5

 68.6

 68.6

 69.2

 70.7

 62.3

 60.0

 61.5

 63.6

 65.8

 67.3

 66.3

 63.7

 63.5

 63.8

 63.5

 61.0

 59.8

 59.3

 59.4

 59.6

 59.8

 60.7

 60.7

 59.0

 59.0

 59.4

 59.6

 61.2

 63.5

 63.6

 63.4

 64.1

 64.6

 64.5

 66.0

 63.6

 62.4

 64.0

 66.2

 68.8

 69.8

 68.3

 65.9

 65.8

 66.2

 65.2

 62.0

 61.1

 61.0

 61.2

 61.4

 61.9

 62.5

 62.1

 61.3

 61.1

 61.4

 62.0

 63.8

 65.5

 65.8

 65.6

 66.4

 66.7

 67.0

 68.4

HIGH LOW MEAN

 9.5

 9.6

 9.4

 9.0

 8.6

 8.5

 8.9

 9.3

 9.4

 9.3

 9.4

 9.7

 9.9

 10.0

 9.9

 9.8

 9.8

 9.7

 9.7

 9.9

 9.9

 10.0

 10.0

 9.8

 9.5

 9.5

 9.5

 9.4

 9.4

 9.4

 9.2

 8.8

 9.1

 8.7

 8.2

 7.7

 7.7

 7.9

 8.6

 8.8

 8.7

 8.7

 9.5

 9.6

 9.5

 9.5

 9.6

 9.4

 9.4

 9.5

 9.3

 9.6

 9.6

 9.6

 9.2

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 8.9

 8.8

 8.7

 8.6

 9.2

 9.5

 9.1

 8.7

 8.2

 8.0

 8.4

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 9.1

 9.6

 9.7

 9.7

 9.6

 9.7

 9.6

 9.6

 9.6

 9.7

 9.7

 9.8

 9.8

 9.6

 9.3

 9.2

 9.2

 9.2

 9.1

 9.0

 8.9

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