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 HIGH

 71

 70

 70

 72

 71

 70

 73

 72

 73

 72

 69

 72

 72

 70

 70

 71

 73

 73

 76

 72

 71

 73

 79

 79

 78

 74

 79

 75

 73

 76

 67

 66

 65

 67

 66

 67

 67

 69

 67

 67

 67

 67

 68

 67

 67

 66

 70

 70

 71

 69

 68

 68

 67

 71

 72

 71

 71

 69

 67

 66

 69

 68

 68

 69

 69

 69

 70

 70

 70

 69

 68

 69

 69

 68

 69

 69

 71

 72

 73

 70

 70

 70

 72

 73

 74

 73

 73

 71

 70

 70

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 25, 2016

HIGH LOW MEAN

 68.6

 69.2

 69.8

 68.6

 68.3

 70.0

 71.0

 70.8

 70.7

 69.5

 68.8

 69.7

 69.9

 68.9

 67.5

 68.0

 70.3

 70.9

 71.8

 72.9

 73.2

 74.1

 74.6

 75.5

 77.0

 78.2

 79.3

 79.9

 79.9

 78.9

 64.0

 65.3

 65.7

 66.3

 64.1

 65.5

 66.8

 67.3

 66.7

 66.4

 65.3

 65.7

 66.2

 65.6

 64.4

 63.4

 65.8

 67.4

 67.5

 68.1

 68.4

 69.4

 69.4

 69.7

 71.1

 72.1

 73.5

 74.3

 74.4

 73.3

 66.4

 67.3

 67.8

 67.1

 66.2

 67.7

 68.9

 69.1

 68.7

 68.2

 67.2

 67.8

 68.0

 67.2

 66.0

 65.7

 68.0

 69.1

 69.6

 70.5

 70.8

 71.7

 71.8

 72.5

 74.0

 75.0

 76.2

 77.0

 77.0

 75.9

HIGH LOW MEAN

 9.4

 9.2

 9.2

 9.0

 9.2

 9.0

 8.8

 8.6

 8.8

 8.9

 9.1

 9.1

 9.1

 9.0

 9.3

 9.4

 9.1

 9.0

 8.9

 8.9

 8.9

 8.8

 8.8

 8.6

 8.6

 8.4

 8.4

 8.3

 8.4

 8.5

 8.8

 8.8

 8.6

 8.7

 8.7

 8.4

 8.2

 8.2

 8.3

 8.4

 8.5

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.5

 8.6

 8.3

 8.1

 8.1

 8.0

 8.0

 7.9

 7.9

 7.6

 7.6

 7.4

 7.3

 7.2

 7.2

 7.4

 9.2

 9.0

 9.0

 8.9

 9.0

 8.8

 8.6

 8.4

 8.5

 8.6

 8.7

 8.7

 8.7

 8.7

 8.9

 8.9

 8.6

 8.5

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.3

 8.2

 8.0

 8.0

 7.8

 7.7

 7.7

 7.7

 7.9

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
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-1449V 

Filed: April 12, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

RUTH MAJOR, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

 * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder 

 * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Carol L. Gallagher, Linwood, NJ, attorney for petitioner. 

Ann Donohue Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On December 1, 2015, Ruth Major (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et 

seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) 

vaccine administered to her on January 4, 2015, she suffered a shoulder injury related 

to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 2. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On April 8, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that petitioner’s “alleged injury is consistent with 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused in 

fact by the flu vaccine she received on January 4, 2015.” Id. at 2. Respondent further 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2 

agrees that petitioner has met the statutory requirements for entitlement to 

compensation. Id. at 3. 

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
§ 618.645 Voluntary withdrawal from a training program. ( a ) ( 1 ) The State must advise a trade-affected worker who chooses to withdraw from a TAA approved training program that the withdrawal may, subject to the requirements in subpart H of this part, result in an overpayment.
( 2 ) The State must advise a worker who chooses to withdraw from a TAA approved training program that the withdrawal may, subject to the requirements in subpart G of this part, result in loss of eligibility for TRA.
( b ) A trade-affected worker who qualifies for an exception for service in the Uniformed Services, under the criteria set out in § 618.615(d)(4), may voluntarily withdraw from a training program.
( c ) A trade-affected worker who ceases participation in training for justifiable cause, as described in § 618.780(b)(3)(iii) (disqualifications), may resume the approved training program.
( d ) The trade-affected worker's eligibility for job search and relocation allowances will not be affected by the decision to withdraw from training. To be eligible for these allowances, the worker must meet all eligibility requirements for these benefits as set forth in §§ 618.410 (job search allowances) and 618.440 (relocation allowances).
( e ) If the trade-affected worker obtains suitable employment before training is completed yet remains in his or her training program: ( 1 ) The State must continue funding the approved training program if training benchmarks, described at § 618.660, continue to be satisfactorily met.
( 2 ) The State must consider whether to amend the worker's training program; and
( 3 ) The State must discuss with the worker whether the training program continues to serve a useful purpose.
490 P.2d 967

#### STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Andrew Michael BOGDAN, Appellant.

No. 741.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Oct. 15, 1971.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 17, 1971.

Paul F. Sherman, Sherman & Sherman, Deming, for appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Ronald Van Amberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.

*251OPINION

COWAN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of aggravated battery contrary to § 40A-3-5, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 6). No appeal was taken from this judgment and sentence. Thereafter, under Rule 93 [21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4)], defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence and an Addendum to Motion for Vacatement (sic) of Judgment and Sentence. These motions were heard by the trial court, evidence was introduced, and the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See State v. Gorton, 79 N.M. 775, 449 P.2d 791 (Ct.App.1969). The court then entered its order overruling such motions and from this order the defendant appeals to this court.

The defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel both at his trial and at the hearing on his motions. He also participated in the various proceedings, representing himself.

Defendant claims error under- 14 points. All claimed errors concern the alleged denial or violation of defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights. None of the claimed errors have merit. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings. We find no reversible error.

The defendant has also filed with this court an instrument styled “Motion to Suppress and Exclude Document” by which he complains that his brief in chief “contains inconsistent facts and contentions therein are not properly defended.” Pie asks leave to amend and attaches certain instruments. These instruments are already a part of the record and were duly considered by this court. The court has also considered the motion and concludes it is not well taken.

Defendant’s motion to Suppress and Exclude Document is denied.

The order of the trial court denying the motions is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and SUTIN, J., concur.
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

 2,581

 2,791

 2,523

 2,499

 2,636

 2,699

 2,457

 2,897

 3,171

 2,640

 2,694

 3,855

 9,672

 19,800

 9,076

 5,044

 4,512

 4,253

 4,528

 4,415

 3,986

 3,899

 4,245

 3,608

 3,846

 3,564

 3,535

 3,504

 3,336

 3,145

 3,287

 95,000

 92,702

 90,718

 88,579

 86,524

 84,702

 83,031

 81,214

 79,905

 78,922

 77,484

 76,169

 76,023

 81,410

 96,150

 99,965

 99,758

 99,057

 98,144

 97,539

 96,856

 95,800

 94,714

 94,011

 92,738

 91,755

 90,553

 89,383

 88,243

 87,000

 85,638

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2009 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: November 1, 2009

 97,581

 95,493

 93,241

 91,078

 89,160

 87,401

 85,488

 84,111

 83,076

 81,562

 80,178

 80,024

 85,695

 101,210

 105,226

 105,009

 104,270

 103,310

 102,672

 101,954

 100,842

 99,699

 98,959

 97,619

 96,584

 95,319

 94,088

 92,887

 91,579

 90,145

 88,925

 4,531,000

 4,509,000

 4,488,000

 4,467,000

 4,445,000

 4,424,000

 4,403,000

 4,382,000

 4,360,000

 4,339,000

 4,318,000

 4,296,000

 4,275,000

 4,254,000

 4,232,000

 4,211,000

 4,190,000

 4,168,000

 4,147,000

 4,126,000

 4,104,000

 4,083,000

 4,062,000

 4,041,000

 4,019,000

 3,998,000

 3,977,000

 3,955,000

 3,934,000

 3,913,000

 3,891,000

 SHASTA

INFLOW 

C. F. S. 

 PREV DAY

 F. C. PAR 

 (COL 3) 

 X .95 

 F. C. 

 PARAM 

 (COLS. 

 1 + 2 ) 

 .0356* 

 X DAYS 

 12/23 THRU

3/20 

 530,000

 MINUS 

 F. C. 

 PARAM

 (COL 3)

 COLS 

 4 X 5 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (1,300,000 

 - COL 6 ) 

 MINUS 

 14,943 

 PER DAY

 AFTER 

 3/20 

 ADJUSTED

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (7-8) 

 PERM 

 STORAGE 

 COMMENTS:

 * LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

 CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) )

 IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE. 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 100,000
Exhibit31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Darwin L. Stump, certify that:

1.              I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Registrant:

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.              The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c.             Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.              The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditor and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a.              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  September 21, 2006

|   | /s/  Darwin L. Stump                                                                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Darwin  L. Stump                                                                      |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer

Petroleum Development  Corporation, Managing General Partner |   |
### §421. Contracts by Government agencies for defense articles, services, etc., for foreign governments in interests of United States

The President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the head of any department or agency of the Government, to enter into contracts for the procurement of defense articles, information, or services for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States, to the extent that such government agrees to pay the United States for such defense articles, information, or services prior to the receipt thereof and to make such payments from time to time as the President may require to protect the interests of the United States; and, upon payment of the full cost, the President may dispose of such articles, information, or services to such government: Provided, That the total amount of the outstanding contracts under this section, less the amounts which have been paid to the United States under such contracts, shall at no time exceed $600,000,000.

(Oct. 28, 1941, ch. 460, title I, §102, 55 Stat. 746.)
**Docket Number: F AA**  **- 2012**  **- 0930**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF ACORN  HOLDING CORP. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPT. 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000737243
<NAME>                    ACORN HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,044,521
<SECURITIES>                                   215,887
<RECEIVABLES>                                  340,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,897,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,646,527
<PP&E>                                         1,880,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,501,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,200,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          596,640
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       40,684
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,036,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,200,865
<SALES>                                        2,970,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,970,698
<CGS>                                          2,508,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,606,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               63,619
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (572,401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (685,651)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.42)



</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 28, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11740

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-61885-CV-KAM

CHARLES E. MCBRIDE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(November 28, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles McBride, a pro se prisoner, appeals the sua sponte dismissal, 
2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. McBride filed this § 1983

action alleging several violations of the U.S. Constitution stemming from his

criminal conviction by a jury of only five members and seeking damages therefor. 

The Supreme Court held in Heck v. Humphrey that:

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction

or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983

plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed

on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28

U.S.C. § 2254.

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). If this type of § 1983 action is brought before the

challenged conviction or sentence is invalidated, it must be dismissed. Id. at 487. 

Thus, “the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff

would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would,

the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id. 

In this case, all of McBride's claims stem from the central allegation that his

criminal trial was unconstitutional because there were only five members of the

jury panel instead of six. In order to rule in favor of McBride on his § 1983

claims, therefore, we must determine that his trial was unconstitutional. Because
3

this determination would necessarily render his conviction and sentence invalid,

and because McBride has not proven that his conviction or sentence has been

reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal

court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the complaint must be dismissed

pursuant to Heck.

AFFIRMED
§ 658.419 Apparent violations. ( a ) If an ES staff member observes, has reason to believe, or is in receipt of information regarding an apparent violation, except as part of a field check under § 653.503 of this chapter, the staff member must document the apparent violation and refer it to the ES Office Manager, who must ensure the apparent violation is documented in the Complaint System log, as described at § 658.410.
( b ) If the employer has filed a job order with the ES office within the past 12 months, the ES office must attempt informal resolution provided at § 658.411.
( c ) If the employer has not filed a job order with the ES office during the past 12 months, the suspected violation of an employment-related law must be referred to the appropriate enforcement agency in writing.
( d ) Apparent violations of nondiscrimination laws must be processed according to the procedures described in § 658.411(c).
[81 FR 56352, Aug. 19, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 629, Jan. 6, 2020; 88 FR 82732, Nov. 24, 2023]
### §290g–5. Federal Reserve banks as depository for the Fund; supervision

Any Federal Reserve bank which is requested to do so by the President shall act as a depository for the Fund, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall supervise and direct the carrying out of these functions by the Federal Reserve banks.

(Pub. L. 94–302, title II, §207, May 31, 1976, 90 Stat. 594.)
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.164 Denied certification. If temporary agricultural labor certification is denied, the CO will send a Final Determination notice to the employer and a copy, if appropriate, to the employer's agent or attorney using an electronic method(s) designated by the OFLC Administrator. For employers permitted to file by mail as set forth in § 655.130(c), the CO will send the Final Determination notice by means normally assuring next day delivery. The Final Determination notice will: ( a ) State the reason(s) certification is denied, citing the relevant regulatory standards;
( b ) Offer the employer an opportunity to request an expedited administrative review or a de novo administrative hearing before an ALJ of the denial under § 655.171; and
( c ) State that if the employer does not request an expedited administrative judicial review or a de novo hearing before an ALJ in accordance with § 655.171, the denial is final, and the Department will not accept any appeal on that *Application for Temporary Employment Certification*.