alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

CHINOOK SALMON REPORT

November 2012

Note: Shaded area not verified with DFG data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Winter Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Spring Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Dail

Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In 

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 2,569 

2-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,876 3-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,922 4-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 2,065 5-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,518 6-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,951 7-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,952 8-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 2,404 9-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 2,284 

10-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,643 11-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,618 12-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,967 13-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,595 

14-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 00 

15-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 403 

16-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,858 

17-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,447 18-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 1,473 19-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,661 20-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,719 21-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 4,973 22-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 4,969 23-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 4,453 24-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 3,936 25-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 3,949 26-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 3,998 

27-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 4,382 28-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 4,990 29-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 6,079 30-Nov-12 0000 0000 0000 0000 5,549 

Total 0000 0 0 0 0000 00000 90,203 1

Winter Run Incidental Take Levels (Oct 1 thru May 31) Spring Run Incidental Take Levels for Season Combined Total (Oct 1 thru Jun 30)

Preliminary

Banks T
#### § 641.110 What is the SCSEP?

The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is a program administered by the Department of Labor that serves unemployed low-income persons who are 55 years of age and older and who have poor employment prospects by training them in part-time community service assignments and by assisting them in developing skills and experience to facilitate their transition to unsubsidized employment.
### §1079l. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(15), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2160

Section, Pub. L. 86–612, §1, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 371, set forth provisions relating to increase of annuities.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
# C_2013204EN.01000101.xml

| 18.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/1

---

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 5 July 2013

on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Latvia and on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Latvia

(CON/2013/48)

2013/C 204/01

Introduction and legal basis

Introduction and legal basis

On 18 June 2013, the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Latvia (1). On 3 July 2013, the ECB received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 as regards the conversion rate to the euro for Latvia (2).

1

2

The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 140(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

Observations

Observations

| 1. | The proposed regulations will enable the introduction of the euro as the currency of Latvia following the abrogation of Latvia’s derogation in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 140(2) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The proposed regulations will enable the introduction of the euro as the currency of Latvia following the abrogation of Latvia’s derogation in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 140(2) of the Treaty.

| 2. | The ECB welcomes the proposed regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The ECB welcomes the proposed regulations.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 5 July 2013.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  COM(2013) 337 final.

1

(2)  COM(2013) 492 final.

2

---
§ 320.19 Election to participate. ( a ) *Claimant files an appeal.* Where the claimant has filed an appeal under § 320.12 of this part the hearings officer shall notify the claimant's base-year employer(s) that such an appeal has been filed and shall provide the base-year employer with a statement of issues on appeal. The hearings officer shall inform the base-year employer(s) that such employer(s) shall have a right to be present at any hearing which is to be held under this part and the right to submit evidence with respect to the issues on appeal. Within 30 days of the date of such notice a base-year employer shall provide the hearings officer with a statement in writing which summarizes the evidence which such employer intends to present with respect to the issues on appeal, which indicates whether the employer wishes to be present at any hearing which may be held, and which designates who will represent the employer with respect to the appeal. An employer who fails to respond in the time prescribed shall be barred from further participation in the appeal and shall forfeit any further right to review as provided for in this part.
( b ) *Base-year employer files an appeal.* Where a base-year employer files an appeal under § 320.12 of this part, the hearings officer shall notify the claimant that such an appeal has been filed and shall provide the claimant with a statement of issues on appeal. The hearings officer shall inform the claimant that he or she or a duly authorized representative shall have a right to be present at any hearing which is to be held under this part and the right to submit evidence with respect to the issues on appeal. Within 30 days of the date of such notice the claimant shall file with the hearings officer an election to participate in the appeal. A claimant who fails to file an election in the time prescribed shall be barred from further participation in the appeal and shall forfeit any right of review as provided for in this part.
[56 FR 65680, Dec. 18, 1991]
### §285. Acceptance of membership by United States in Asian Development Bank

The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the Asian Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") provided for by the agreement establishing the Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement") deposited in the archives of the United Nations.

(Pub. L. 89–369, §2, Mar. 16, 1966, 80 Stat. 71.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 89–369, §1, Mar. 16, 1966, 80 Stat. 71, provided: "That this Act [enacting this subchapter and amending section 24 of Title 12, Banks and Banking] may be cited as the 'Asian Development Bank Act'."

#### Par Value Modification

For Congressional direction that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the value in terms of gold of the Asian Development Bank's holdings of United States dollars following the establishment of a par value of the dollar at $38 for a fine troy ounce of gold pursuant to the Par Value Modification Act and for the authorization of the appropriations necessary to provide such maintenance of value, see section 5152 of Title 31, Money and Finance.
492 P.2d 1009

#### STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Jackie D. JAMESON, Appellant.

No. 796.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Dec. 22, 1972.

Mel B. O’Reilly, Jay W. Forbes, McCormick, Paine & Forbes, Carlsbad, for appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James B. Mulcock, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Jameson pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary. Section 40A-16-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6). The record shows he made this plea willingly with advice of counsel. Sentence was passed, and Jame-son appeals.

We affirm.

The trial court sentenced Jameson as follows:

> Not less than one year nor more than five years on Count 1, not less than one year nor more than five years on Count 2, to run *consecutively*to term imposed on Count 1 and not less than one year *393nor more than five years on Count 3, to run concurrently with term imposed on Count 2. [Emphasis added.]

Jameson claims his constitutional rights were denied because the trial court demonstrated bias and prejudice. Prior to his election to enter a guilty plea, Jameson read and signed an affidavit explained to him by his attorney which fully advised him of his rights. Prior to sentence, neither he nor his attorney had anything to say.

In passing, the trial judge stated that Jameson got another boy in this mess. This does not constitute bias or prejudice. A trial court may take into consideration the criminal record of one upon whom sentence is to be imposed. State v. Helm, 79 N.M. 305, 442 P.2d 795 (1968). The trial judge sentenced Jameson in accordance with the criminal code. Therefore, there could be no abuse of discretion in sentencig Jameson. State v. Henry, 78 N.M. 573, 434 P.2d 692 (1967).

Affirmed.

HENDLEY and COWAN, JJ., concur.

WOOD, C. J., not participating.
495 P.2d 388

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 832.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 3, 1972.

Robert L. Christensen, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Winston Roberts-Hohl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fc, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendant was indicted on two counts of attempted rape of a child (§§ 40A-28-1, 40A-9-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1964)) and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (§ 40A-6-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol.1964)). He pled guilty to the latter charge and was sentenced according to the statute. The two counts of attempted rape were then dismissed by the State. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion for a redetermination of the sentence, requesting probation on the basis of a psychiatrist’s report which had been made prior to the plea of guilty. The trial court denied the motion and defendant appeals asserting: (1) The trial court erred in disregarding the psychiatrist’s recommendation of probation; (2) The trial court erred in not committing defendant up to sixty days for diagnosis and recommendation *609pursuant to § 40A-29-15(C), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1964, Poc.Supp.1971); (3) This court should take judicial notice that no psychiatric or psychological help is available for defendant at the penitentiary.

We affirm.

Defendant’s first two points are controlled by the philosophy in State v. Serrano, 76 N.M. 655, 417 P.2d 795 (1966) and Ewing v. State, 80 N.M. 558, 458 P.2d 810 (Ct.App.1969). Deferring or suspending a sentence with subsequent probation “ * * * is not a matter of right but is an act of clemency and committed to the discretion of the trial court.” The record reveals that the trial court had before it a history of defendant. We cannot say as a matter of law that the trial court abused its discretion by not adopting the report of the psychiatrist or in not requesting diagnosis and recommendation from the Department of Corrections.

Defendant further asks us to take judicial notice that no psychiatric or psychological help is available for him at the penitentiary. Defendant cites neither source nor reference for such a proposition and we have found none in our search. Section 21-1-1(44) (d), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 1970); compare Boswell v. Rio De Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 68 N.M. 457, 362 P.2d 991 (1961). Absent a showing that judicial notice can be taken of such asserted facts, the assertion is not a matter for judicial notice.

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SUTIN and COWAN, JJ., concur.
### §§409, 410. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section 409, act Jan. 31, 1922, ch. 44, §1, 42 Stat. 361, related to prohibition against exportation of arms to American countries or countries under American jurisdiction in a state of domestic violence. See section 1934 of this title.

Section 410, act Jan. 31, 1922, ch. 44, §2, 42 Stat. 361, related to penalties. See section 1934 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4379 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4379

  To prohibit the use of Federal funds to further restrict conduct in 
                         relation to firearms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2016

    Mr. Graves of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of Federal funds to further restrict conduct in 
                         relation to firearms.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE .

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defending Gun Rights Against 
Executive Overreach Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FURTHER RESTRICT 
              CONDUCT IN RELATION TO FIREARMS.

    No Federal funds shall be used to--
            (1) impose a limitation on the conduct of an individual in 
        relation to a firearm that is more restrictive than the 
        limitations on the conduct that are in effect as of January 5, 
        2016; or
            (2) change the operation of the national instant criminal 
        background check system established under section 103 of the 
        Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §4701. Statement of purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to establish an undergraduate scholarship program designed to bring students of limited financial means from developing countries to the United States for study at United States institutions of higher education.

(Pub. L. 99–93, title VI, §601, Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 439.)
§ 404.365 When an equitably adopted child is dependent. If you are the insured's equitably adopted child, as defined in § 404.359, you are considered dependent upon him or her if you were either living with or receiving contributions for your support from the insured at the time of his or her death. If your equitable adoption is found to have occurred after the insured became entitled to old-age or disability benefits, your dependency cannot be established during the insured's life. If your equitable adoption is found to have occurred before the insured became entitled to old-age or disability benefits, you are considered dependent upon him or her if you were either living with or receiving contributions for your support from the insured at one of these times— ( a ) When you applied; or
( b ) If the insured had a period of disability that lasted until he or she became entitled to old-age or disability benefits, at the beginning of the period of disability or at the time the insured became entitled to benefits.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1260 Special resource provision for recipients under a State plan. ( a ) *General.* In the case of any individual (or individual and spouse, as the case may be) who for the month of December 1973 was a recipient of aid or assistance under a State plan approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI, of the Act (see § 416.121), the resources of such individual (or individual and spouse, as the case may be) shall be deemed not to exceed the amount specified in § 416.1205 during any period that the resources of such individual (or individual and spouse, as the case may be) do not exceed the maximum amount of resources specified in such State plan as in effect in October 1972, provided that such individual: ( 1 ) Has, since December 1973, resided continuously in the State under whose plan he was eligible for the month of December 1973; and
( 2 ) Has not, since December 1973, been ineligible for an SSI benefit for a period exceeding 6 consecutive months. An SSI benefit means a Federal benefit only; it does not include any State supplementation.
( b ) For purposes of this section, an individual will cease to reside continuously in a State if he leaves the State with the present intention to abandon his home there. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, ( 1 ) If an individual leaves the State for a period of 90 calendar days or less, his absence from the State will be considered temporary and he will be considered to continue to reside in such State; and
( 2 ) If an individual leaves the State for a period in excess of 90 calendar days, he will no longer be considered to reside continuously in such State.
( c ) *State plan; defined.* As used in this subpart, *an approved State plan as in effect in October 1972* and *State plan for October 1972* means a State plan as approved under the provisions of 45 CFR Ch. II as in effect in October 1972.
[41 FR 47424, Oct. 29, 1976, as amended at 52 FR 29841, Aug. 12, 1987]
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.825 What rules of practice apply to the hearing? ( a ) Except as specifically provided in this subpart, and to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of this subpart, the “Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges” established by the Secretary at 29 CFR part 18 shall apply to administrative proceedings under this subpart.
( b ) As provided in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556, any oral or documentary evidence may be received in proceedings under this part. The Federal Rules of Evidence and subpart B of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (29 CFR part 18, subpart B) shall not apply, but principles designed to ensure production of relevant and probative evidence shall guide the admission of evidence. The administrative law judge may exclude evidence which is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitive.
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.185 Job service complaint system; enforcement of work contracts. ( a ) *Filing with DOL.* Complaints arising under this subpart must be filed through the Job Service Complaint System, as described in 20 CFR part 658, subpart E. Complaints involving allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be referred by the SWA to the CO for appropriate handling and resolution. Complaints that involve work contracts must be referred by the SWA to WHD for appropriate handling and resolution, as described in 29 CFR part 501. As part of this process, WHD may report the results of its investigation to the OFLC Administrator for consideration of employer penalties or such other action as may be appropriate.
( b ) *Filing with the Department of Justice.* Complaints alleging that an employer discouraged an eligible U.S. worker from applying, failed to hire, discharged, or otherwise discriminated against an eligible U.S. worker, or discovered violations involving the same, will be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and Employee Rights Section, in addition to any activity, investigation, and/or enforcement action taken by ETA or a SWA. Likewise, if the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section becomes aware of a violation of the regulations in this subpart, it may provide such information to the appropriate SWA and the CO.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1435 Submitting written evidence to an administrative law judge. ( a ) When you submit your request for hearing, you should also submit information or evidence as required by § 416.912 or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge. Each party must make every effort to ensure that the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence and must inform us about or submit any written evidence, as required in § 416.912, no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing. If you do not comply with this requirement, the administrative law judge may decline to consider or obtain the evidence unless the circumstances described in paragraph (b) of this section apply.
( b ) If you have evidence required under § 416.912 but you have missed the deadline described in paragraph (a) of this section, the administrative law judge will accept the evidence if he or she has not yet issued a decision and you did not inform us about or submit the evidence before the deadline because: ( 1 ) Our action misled you;
( 2 ) You had a physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitation(s) that prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier; or
( 3 ) Some other unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond your control prevented you from informing us about or submitting the evidence earlier. Examples include, but are not limited to: ( i ) You were seriously ill, and your illness prevented you from contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person;
( ii ) There was a death or serious illness in your immediate family;
( iii ) Important records were destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidental cause; or
( iv ) You actively and diligently sought evidence from a source and the evidence was not received or was received less than 5 business days prior to the hearing.
( c ) *Claims Not Based on an Application For Benefits.* Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs (a)-(b) of this section, for claims that are not based on an application for benefits, the evidentiary requirement to inform us about or submit evidence no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing will not apply if our other regulations allow you to submit evidence after the date of an administrative law judge decision.
[81 FR 90994, Dec. 16, 2016