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 ELEV

 417.70

 416.67

 415.79

 414.78

 414.69

 414.62

 414.46

 414.37

 414.28

 414.19

 414.10

 414.01

 413.93

 413.82

 413.73

 413.66

 413.57

 413.47

 413.37

 413.28

 412.83

 412.37

 411.91

 411.45

 411.34

 411.25

 410.89

 409.94

 409.49

 409.36

 409.27

 670,547

 661,583

 653,960

 645,252

 644,478

 643,876

 642,502

 641,729

 640,957

 640,185

 639,414

 638,643

 637,957

 637,016

 636,245

 635,647

 634,877

 634,022

 633,168

 632,400

 628,563

 624,650

 620,747

 616,852

 615,922

 615,161

 612,123

 604,132

 600,361

 599,273

 598,520

STORAGE

-7,344

-8,964

-7,623

-8,708

-774

-602

-1,374

-773

-772

-772

-771

-771

-686

-941

-771

-598

-770

-855

-854

-768

-3,837

-3,913

-3,903

-3,895

-930

-761

-3,038

-7,991

-3,771

-1,088

-753

CHANGE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

154

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

PUMPING

 3,300

 4,054

 4,913

 4,069

 0

 0

 1,080

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,620

 1,615

 1,600

 1,600

 0

 0

 1,200

 1,594

 1,590

 123

 0

POWER

 268

 268

 259

 267

 240

 245

 270

 270

 316

 320

 305

 270

 304

 286

 283

 291

 302

 287

 265

 288

 299

 297

 290

 221

 290

 290

 288

 290

 282

 278

 278

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

-135

-197

+1,328

-54

-150

-59

+657

-119

-74

-69

-84

-118

-42

-189

-105

-164

-86

-144

-166

-99

-15

-61

-77

-143

-178

-93

-44

-2,145

-29

-148

-102

OR

 212

 211

 193

 181

 134

 153

 119

 172

 147

 150

 175

 180

 172

 208

 208

 188

 166

 177

 166

 174

 152

 178

 170

 164

 183

 153

 117

 87

 122

 127

 143

C.F.S.

 .75

 .75

 .69

 .65

 .48

 .55

 .43

 .62

 .53

 .54

 .63

 .65

 .62

 .75

 .75

 .68

 .60

 .64

 .60

 .63

 .55

 .65

 .62

 .60

 .67

 .56

 .43

 .32

 .45

 .47

 .53

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR October 17, 2012

DAILY OPERATIONS

AUGUST 2012 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -79,371 154 28,358 8,707 0 -3,104 5,082 18.39 .00

ACRE-FEET -79,371 305 56,248 17,270 0 -6,157 10,080

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 56,248

PACHECO TUNNEL 17,270 TOTAL 73,518

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2012 TO DATE = .00

 677,891

SPILL 0 .00

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17
§ 658.605 Communication of findings to State agencies. ( a ) The Regional Administrator must inform SWAs in writing of the results of review and assessment activities and, as appropriate, must discuss with the State Administrator the impact or action required by the Department as a result of review and assessment activities.
( b ) The ETA National Office must transmit the results of any review and assessment activities it conducted to the Regional Administrator who must send the information to the SWA.
( c ) Whenever the review and assessment indicates a SWA violation of ES regulations or its State Plan, the Regional Administrator must follow the procedures set forth at subpart H of this part.
( d ) Regional Administrators must follow-up any corrective action plan imposed on a SWA under subpart H of this part by further review and assessment of the State Workforce Agency pursuant to this subpart.
### §3924. Uniform and consolidated administration of Service

The Secretary shall on a continuing basis consider the need for uniformity of personnel policies and procedures and for consolidation (in accordance with section 2695 of this title) of personnel functions among agencies utilizing the Foreign Service personnel system. Where feasible, the Secretary of State shall encourage (in consultation with the other heads of such agencies) the development of uniform policies and procedures and consolidated personnel functions.

(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, §204, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2079.)
### Part E—Lump-Sum Payments
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6518

RODNEY SIMMONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-02346-DCN)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §5712. Participation in multilateral organizations, rights under international agreements, and trade status

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, should be the policy of the United States with respect to Hong Kong after June 30, 1997:

(1) The United States should support Hong Kong's participation in all appropriate multilateral conferences, agreements, and organizations in which Hong Kong is eligible to participate.

(2) The United States should continue to fulfill its obligations to Hong Kong under international agreements, so long as Hong Kong reciprocates, regardless of whether the People's Republic of China is a party to the particular international agreement, unless and until such obligations are modified or terminated in accordance with law.

(3) The United States should respect Hong Kong's status as a separate customs territory, and as a WTO member country (as defined in section 3501(10) of title 19), whether or not the People's Republic of China participates in the World Trade Organization (as defined in section 3501(8) of title 19).

(Pub. L. 102–383, title I, §102, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1450; Pub. L. 106–36, title I, §1002(e), June 25, 1999, 113 Stat. 133.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Par. (3). Pub. L. 106–36 substituted "WTO member country (as defined in section 3501(10) of title 19)" for "contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade" and "World Trade Organization (as defined in section 3501(8) of title 19)" for "latter organization".
###### Editorial Note on Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

#### § 655.450 Determinations.

Except as otherwise noted in this section, the OFLC Administrator and CO(s), by virtue of delegation from the OFLC Administrator, have the authority to certify or deny *CW-1 Applications for Temporary Employment Certification.* The CO will certify the application only if the employer has met all the requirements of this subpart, including the criteria for certification in § 655.451, thus demonstrating that there is an insufficient number of U.S. workers in the Commonwealth who are able, willing, qualified and who will be available at the time and place of the job opportunity for which certification is sought and that the employment of the CW-1 workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
#### § 408.914 When would overpayment recovery be against equity and good conscience?

We will waive recovery of an overpayment when you are without fault (as defined in § 408.912) and recovery would be against equity and good conscience. Recovery would be against equity and good conscience if you changed your position for the worse or gave up a valuable right in reliance on our notice that payment would be made or because of the incorrect payment itself. *Example:* Upon our notice that you are eligible for SVB payments, you signed a lease on an apartment renting for $15 a month more than the one you previously occupied. You were subsequently found ineligible for SVB and no benefits are payable. In this case, recovery of the overpayment would be considered “against equity and good conscience.”
<page>			EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Cornerstone Fund II L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee
Horwitz, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.







By: /s/ Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
 		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:	November 13, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of AE Biofuels, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd Waltz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:  November 30, 2010
By:
/s/ TODD WALTZTodd WaltzExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


       CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cover-All Technologies Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John W. Roblin, President and Chief Executive
Officer (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:    November 15, 2004

/s/ John W. Roblin
-----------------------------------------
Name:   John W. Roblin
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
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

 150

 151

 165

 227

 173

 162

 158

 156

 154

 151

 145

 144

 145

 149

 151

 161

 157

 140

 133

 128

 127

 123

 125

 122

 120

 129

 132

 156

 158

 179

 138

 140

 143

 145

 150

 145

 147

 139

 139

 137

 134

 136

 137

 134

 131

 131

 125

 127

 119

 107

 115

 114

 112

 110

 109

 109

 108

 113

 114

 120

 142

 144

 147

 170

 162

 154

 151

 148

 146

 144

 140

 140

 141

 141

 139

 139

 136

 132

 128

 122

 119

 118

 117

 116

 115

 118

 117

 122

 125

 140

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 25, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 12.1
 ALON USA ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  Statement Regarding Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(dollars in thousands)
 Fiscal Year Ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges:Earnings:Income before income tax expense
(benefit), minority interest in
income (loss) of subsidiaries,
accumulated dividends on preferred
stock of subsidiary and income
(loss) from equity earnings (losses)
of investees
    
    $
    (191,642
    )
    
    $
    157,427
    
    
    $
    144,937
    
    
    $
    256,416
    
    
    $
    174,212Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    121,232
    
    
    
    83,663
    
    
    
    52,889
    
    
    
    35,832
    
    
    
    23,998Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    425
    
    
    
    344
    
    
    
    394
    
    
    
    441
    
    
    
    311Distributions from equity investees
    
    
    19,167
    
    
    
    2,774
    
    
    
    9,301
    
    
    
    2,422
    
    
    
    1,617Less:Interest capitalized
    
    
    (1,692
    )
    
    
    (3,417
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (927
    )Total earnings
    
    $
    (52,510
    )
    
    $
    240,791
    
    
    $
    52,038
    
    
    $
    295,111
    
    
    $
    199,211Fixed charges:Interest expense, net
    
    $
    111,137
    
    
    $
    67,550
    
    
    $
    47,747
    
    
    $
    30,658
    
    
    $
    19,326Interest capitalized
    
    
    1,692
    
    
    
    3,417
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    927Rental expense interest factor (A)
    
    
    8,403
    
    
    
    12,696
    
    
    
    5,142
    
    
    
    5,174
    
    
    
    3,745Total fixed charges
    
    $
    121,232
    
    
    $
    83,663
    
    
    $
    52,889
    
    
    $
    35,832
    
    
    $
    23,998Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    (B
    )
    
    
    2.9x
    
    
    
    3.9x
    
    
    
    8.2x
    
    
    
    8.3x
 
 (A)
    
    The interest portion of rental expense represents one-third of rents, which is
deemed representative of the interest portion of rental expense.(B)
    
    For the year ended December 31, 2009, our ratio of earnings to fixed charges was
less than one-to-one, and our coverage deficiency was approximately $173.7 million.
First Department,

June, 1943.

(June 4, 1943.)

#### Julia Pepper, Respondent, v. Charlotte Schmidlin et al., Appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendants were not insurers of the safety of persons using the backyard. The sink over which plaintiff fell when she stepped backwards was a large and conspicuous object, readily observable, and was not an obstruction in the path of anyone using the yard for ordinary purposes. It did not constitute a nuisance or a trap. The unfortunate accident which occurred in broad daylight was undoubtedly caused by plaintiff’s failure to look before she stepped backwards and fell. Defendants have not been shown to be guilty of any actionable negligence.

The judgment and the order should, accordingly, be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.
#### § 678.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop center where the operator is not a governmental entity?

Yes. State merit staff can continue to perform functions and activities in the one-stop center. The Local WDB and one-stop operator must establish a system for management of merit staff in accordance with State policies and procedures. Continued use of State merit staff for the provision of Wagner-Peyser Act services or services from other programs with merit staffing requirements must be included in the competition for and final contract with the one-stop operator when Wagner-Peyser Act services or services from other programs with merit staffing requirements are being provided.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, *v.*John D. Lighting, Petitioner-Appellant.

(No. 58136;

First District (2nd Division) —

July 5, 1973.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Suzanne M. Kohut, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel,) for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Patricia Bobb, Kenneth L. Gillis, and John B. Adams, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

PER CURIAM.

LEIGHTON, J., took no part.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 26, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D22-1970, 3D22-1999

Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-13703, 18-7447

________________

Dario Carnevale, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Rogenia Trading, Inc., etc., et al.,

Respondents.

Cases of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, and Alvin B. Davis, for petitioners.

 The Tome Law Firm, P.A., and Jay R. Tome (Davie), for respondents.

Roniel Rodriguez IV, P.A., and Roniel Rodriguez IV, for Michael I. 

Feldman, Esquire, as amicus curiae.

Before LOGUE, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. 

BOKOR, J.
2

Dario and Flavia Carnevale petition for writs of prohibition, seeking to 

reverse the denial of their motions to disqualify the trial judge from presiding 

over the three underlying cases. The Carnevales argue that the trial judge 

exhibited bias due to certain social media postings evincing a friendly 

relationship with a proposed third-party intervenor, Michael Feldman, Esq.,

and his counsel, as well as by allowing Mr. Feldman to participate in hearings 

without having been formally added as a party.

Preliminarily, we note the Carnevales already successfully moved to 

disqualify a previous trial judge on this same basis earlier in the litigation. A 

party may not seek a second disqualification of a successor judge except in 

such instance where the party demonstrates actual bias or prejudice. See

Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(i) (“If a judge has been previously 

disqualified on motion for alleged prejudice or partiality under subdivision (e), 

a successor judge cannot be disqualified based on a successive motion by 

the same party unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not 

fair or impartial in the case.”). We review such a determination under an 

abuse of discretion standard. See Delgado v. Miller, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D405 

(Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 22, 2023) (“[A]n order denying the disqualification of a 

successor judge is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prohibition does not 

lie unless the record clearly refutes the successor judge’s decision to deny 
3

the motion.”) (citations and quotations omitted). The record reveals the trial 

court made the best of a messy situation and attempted to provide notice 

and an opportunity to be heard to all impacted parties. To the extent the 

Carnevales—or any other party—objected to the procedure employed by the 

court, the remedy does not lie in seeking to recuse or disqualify the trial 

judge. See, e.g., Bodden v. State, 314 So. 3d 458, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) 

(“To prevail on a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to bar a trial judge 

from presiding over a case requires more than mere disagreement with a 

ruling on a given motion. This is because an adverse ruling is not a legally 

sufficient ground to disqualify the trial judge.”).

Petition denied.