alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Kupiec, Plaintiff, v. Syracuse Chilled Plow Company, Defendant.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
### §4210. Liability for uncollected fees

Every consul general, consul, or vice consul appointed to perform the duty of any such officer, who omits to collect any fees which he is entitled to charge for any official service, shall be liable to the United States therefor, as if he had collected the same; unless, upon good cause shown therefor, the Secretary of the Treasury shall think proper to remit the same.

(R.S. §1724; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, §3, 34 Stat. 100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §1724 derived from act Aug. 18, 1856, ch. 127, §18, 11 Stat. 58.

References to "commercial agent" and "vice-commercial agent" were omitted in view of the abolition of the grade of commercial agent by act Apr. 5, 1906.

Section was not enacted as part of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 which comprises this chapter.

Section was formerly classified to section 1190 of this title, and prior thereto to section 93 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Carmelo Romeo, Respondent, against Holley Canning Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs. Hill, P. J., Heffeman, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur. [See 272 App. Div. 1092.]
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Frontier, Cody, and Mesaverde formations in the Wind River 
and southern Bighorn basins, Wyoming

#### Professional Paper 495-E

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                 
  (4660 pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                 
    (5018 pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                 
    (5691 pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                 
    (6745 pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp495E 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:10:37
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

DAY

 2,916

 2,996

 2,503

 2,671

 2,711

 2,784

 2,450

 2,383

 3,002

 1,853

 3,179

 2,695

 2,571

 2,384

 2,398

 69,903

 69,178

 68,566

 67,515

 66,677

 65,919

 65,267

 64,332

 63,379

 63,062

 61,669

 61,606

 61,086

 60,474

 59,715

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 420,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

 1,300,000

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2014 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: August 15, 2014

 72,819

 72,174

 71,069

 70,186

 69,388

 68,703

 67,717

 66,715

 66,381

 64,915

 64,848

 64,301

 63,657

 62,858

 62,113

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 4,552,000

 1,090,839

 1,105,782

 1,120,725

 1,135,668

 1,150,611

 1,165,554

 1,180,497

 1,195,440

 1,210,383

 1,225,326

 1,240,269

 1,255,212

 1,270,155

 1,285,098

 1,300,041

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 3.0972

 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 

 73,583
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

 539

 545

 491

 542

 532

 533

 490

 456

 457

 497

 507

 490

 460

 448

 448

 475

 487

 489

 495

 482

 475

 478

 472

 477

 480

 471

 462

 463

 459

 463

 464

 468

 468

 462

 477

 468

 459

 438

 435

 441

 454

 477

 454

 431

 430

 438

 446

 462

 454

 460

 459

 458

 460

 462

 464

 461

 455

 448

 421

 445

 441

 442

 500

 502

 478

 512

 487

 481

 457

 444

 449

 474

 490

 466

 444

 438

 443

 461

 473

 467

 471

 467

 465

 467

 467

 469

 471

 462

 456

 451

 450

 451

 450

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 2, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
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

 746

 688

 803

 894

 811

 811

 698

 681

 793

 885

 927

 888

 861

 785

 688

 582

 316

 225

 182

 159

 158

 144

 150

 140

 138

 139

 142

 142

 149

 155

 157

 170

 188

 180

 192

 245

 195

 219

 190

 213

 240

 228

 179

 172

 148

 115

 110

 102

 88

 83

 100

 97

 105

 109

 121

 124

 127

 123

 119

 118

 129

 131

 349

 373

 408

 495

 529

 524

 462

 418

 496

 557

 576

 506

 468

 417

 349

 320

 205

 151

 128

 124

 122

 124

 127

 131

 133

 134

 134

 133

 134

 139

 142

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
§ 677.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to States' performance requirements? ( a ) In addition to sanctions for failure to report or failure to meet adjusted levels of performance, States will be subject to administrative actions in the case of poor performance.
( b ) States' performance achievement on the individual primary indicators will be assessed in addition to the overall State program score and overall State indicator score. Based on this assessment, as clarified and explained in guidance, for performance on any individual primary indicator, the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education will require the State to establish a performance risk plan to address continuous improvement on the individual primary indicator.
#### § 658.700 Scope and purpose of subpart.

This subpart sets forth the procedures which the Department must follow upon either discovering independently or receiving from other(s) information indicating that SWAs may not be adhering to ES regulations.
<page>
                                                     EXHIBIT 31.02
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kevin Perry, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

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

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

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

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

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

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



<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.







Date:  November 15, 2004     /s/Kevin Perry
                                Kevin Perry
                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                Demeter Management Corporation,
                                general partner of the registrant
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.451 Criteria for temporary labor certification. ( a ) The criteria for TLC include whether the employer has complied with all of the requirements of this subpart, which are required to grant the labor certification.
( b ) In determining whether there are insufficient U.S. workers in the Commonwealth to fill the employer's job opportunity, the CO will count as available any U.S. worker who applied (or on whose behalf an application is made) directly to the employer, but who was rejected by the employer for other than a lawful job-related reason. In making this determination, the CO will also consider the employer's contacts with its former U.S. workers, including workers that have been laid off within 270 calendar days before the date of need.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3615

_____________________________
C HRISTOPHER D. P OWELL ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Cour t for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

.
April 9, 2019

L ONG , J R ., R OBERT E., A SSOCIATE J UDGE

.
Christopher Powell appeals his convictions for the first

degree murder of one woman and the attempted first

- degree murder of another woman, both commit ted on February 20, 2016. Because the evidentiary errors he asserts on appeal were unpreserved at trial, reversal is available only if Powell shows that the errors were fundamental. Williams v. State , 209 So. 3d 543, 557 (Fla. 2017).

Powell contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing testimony from a co

- defendant regarding the events leading up to the charged incidents

– that a BOLO (be on lookout) had been issued for Powell

, a warrant had been issued for Powell’s arrest, and that Powell “beat [his wife] up

. ”2 However, our review of the trial transcript reveals that the

co

- defendant’s comments were isolated, passing references to explain some of Powell’s actions being related by the witne ss. The State never mentioned these p ortions of the co

- defendant’s testimony in any argument, and, taken in context of the e ntire trial, these references did not become a feature of the trial. The admission of these statements was not fundamental error. See Calloway v. State , 210 So. 3d 116 0, 119 1 (Fla. 2017) (unpreserved

error “so fundamental as to require reversal ‘must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’”).

Powe ll also argues that the trial court fundamentally erred by allowing two sheriff’s deputies to testify regarding out of court statements made by the surviving victim during the investigation of th e case. The surviving victim testified at trial prior to the testimony of these officers

. The record shows that even if contemporaneous objections had been raised, the testimony of these officers did not improperly bolster the witness’ credibility in a simple swearing match between witnesses. The surviving victim was not the only witness to Appellant’s acts and the record of the entire trial demonstrates overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s verdict. A ny error in admitting hearsay evidence from these witnesses was harmless and, in the context of the entire t rial, certainly not fundamental error. See Floyd v. State , 850 So. 2d 383, 400 (Fla. 2002).

A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and J AY , J., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under F la. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________3 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley , Assistant Attorney General, Tallah assee , for Appellee.
(February 16, 1948.)

#### Rae Cantone et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff wife by reason of a fall upon an icy portion of the sidewalk in front of a church at 1142 Herkimer Street, in the borough of Brooklyn. A companion action is brought by the husband for loss of services. The plaintiffs’ proof was to the effect that the snow and ice had not been removed in front of the church for ten days after the snowfall on January 7, 1945. The city contended that the accident was due to a subsequent snowfall which occurred one day before the accident, namely, January 16, 1945, and that therefore the city did not have the opportunity to clear the snow. Plaintiffs had a verdict on which a judgment was entered. The city appeals. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. *(Galnano*v. *City of New York,*285 N. Y. 818; *Schoonmaker*v. *City of New York,*255 App. Div. 714; *Williams*v. *City of New York,*214 N. Y. 259; *Larson*V. *City of New York,*145 App. Div. 619; *Johnson*v. *City of Buffalo,*178 App. Div. 295.) Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-95,232-01

EX P ARTE ANDREUS G IOVAN BARK LEY, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. DC30-CR2021-0739 IN THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM WICHITA COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of Assault F amily /Household Member with Previous Conviction and sentenced to twenty -five y e ars’ imprisonment as a habitual felon. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed h is conviction. Barkley v. State , N o. 02-22-00081-CR (Tex
. App.—F ort W orth Mar. 16, 2023) ( not desig n a ted for publication). Applicant, throug h h abeas counsel, filed this application f or
a w rit of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the d istrict c lerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R

I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Trial counsel, a ppellate counsel, and habeas counsel are all the same lawy er. Applicant contends that, throug h no fault of his own, he was denied h is rig ht to p ursue in this Court a petition for discretionary review of the appellate decision affirming his conviction. He asks2

f o r a l a t e P D R. This Court has made a n independent review of the record, and it supports Applicant’s claim and request for a late PDR. Relief is g ranted. Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow , 180 S.W .3d 135 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may file an out-of-ti m e petition f or discretionary review of the judg ment of the Second Court o f Appeals in c ause number 02-22-00081- CR. Should Applicant d ecide to file a p e tition for discretionary review, he must file it with this Court within thirty

day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Cop i e s o f t

h i s o p i n i o n s h a l l be sent to the Tex as Department of Criminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: NOVEMB E R 22, 2023 Do not publish
<page>                                             EXHIBIT 31.02
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

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

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

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

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

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

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


5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.







Date:  November 14, 2003     /s/ Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                 Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                 Chief Financial Officer,
                                 Demeter Management Corporation,
                                 general partner of the registrant
### §2711. Counterterrorism Protection Fund

#### (a) Authority

The Secretary of State may reimburse domestic and foreign persons, agencies, or governments for the protection of judges or other persons who provide assistance or information relating to terrorist incidents primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Before making a payment under this section in a matter over which there is Federal criminal jurisdiction, the Secretary shall advise and consult with the Attorney General.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State for "Administration of Foreign Affairs" $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 for use in reimbursing persons, agencies, or governments under this section.

#### (c) Designation of Fund

Amounts made available under this section may be referred to as the "Counterterrorism Protection Fund".

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 841, title I, §39, as added Pub. L. 99–399, title V, §504(2), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 871.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 39 of act Aug. 1, 1956, was renumbered section 40 by section 504(1) of Pub. L. 99–399, and subsequently renumbered, and set out as a Short Title of 1956 Amendment note under section 2651 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–138, title I, §111(1), Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 654.