alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 658.426 Complaints against the United States Employment Service. ( a ) Complaints alleging that an ETA regional office or the National Office has violated ES regulations must be mailed to the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210. Such complaints must include: ( 1 ) A specific allegation of the violation;
( 2 ) The date of the incident;
( 3 ) Location of the incident;
( 4 ) The individual alleged to have committed the violation; and
( 5 ) Any other relevant information available to the complainant.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary or the Regional Administrator as designated must make a determination and respond to the complainant after investigation of the complaint.
§ 498.215 The hearing and burden of proof. ( a ) The ALJ will conduct a hearing on the record in order to determine whether the respondent should be found liable under this part.
( b ) In civil monetary penalty cases under §§ 498.100 through 498.132: ( 1 ) The respondent has the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses and any mitigating circumstances; and
( 2 ) The Inspector General has the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion with respect to all other issues.
( c ) The burden of persuasion will be judged by a preponderance of the evidence.
( d ) The hearing will be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause.
( e ) ( 1 ) A hearing under this part is not limited to specific items and information set forth in the notice letter to the respondent. Subject to the 15-day requirement under § 498.208, additional items or information may be introduced by either party during its case-in-chief, unless such information or items are inadmissible under § 498.217.
( 2 ) After both parties have presented their cases, evidence may be admitted on rebuttal as to those issues presented in the case-in-chief, even if not previously exchanged in accordance with § 498.208.
[61 FR 65471, Dec. 13, 1996]
#### Ravi Vikash CHAND, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75432.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Ravi Vikash Chand, Florence, AZ, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Susan A. Sinclair, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ravi Vikash Chand, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Chand’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent that we *197have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision of June 20, 2003, affirming the immigration judge’s decision of February 11, 2003, because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost one year after the 90 day time limit had expired. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (requiring a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

s0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147249

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147249

COA: 308711

Wayne CC: 11-005883-FC

JOHN HENRY SIMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

 17,519

 17,340

 18,431

 18,070

 18,924

 19,724

 17,681

 16,263

 14,459

 14,545

 14,860

 15,766

 16,853

 16,543

 17,537

 18,831

 20,646

 19,840

 17,325

 16,114

 14,921

 15,365

 16,091

 15,673

 16,739

 14,541

 16,612

 17,285

 17,637

 18,509

 8,773

 6,875

 9,283

 9,204

 7,945

 8,739

 9,099

 7,999

 5,463

 6,759

 6,277

 6,170

 8,452

 7,818

 7,675

 7,769

 8,524

 10,129

 8,968

 7,768

 7,174

 6,905

 7,722

 7,056

 8,700

 7,459

 8,048

 7,865

 8,096

 8,089

 12,966

 12,581

 13,587

 12,883

 13,119

 14,269

 13,704

 11,762

 9,761

 11,052

 10,918

 11,604

 12,399

 12,257

 12,020

 12,499

 14,898

 14,792

 12,993

 12,051

 11,472

 11,513

 11,632

 11,481

 11,830

 10,663

 11,615

 11,959

 12,574

 12,672

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 8, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 671.150 How do statutory and workflex waivers apply to national emergency grants? ( a ) State and Local Board grantees may request and we may approve the application of existing general statutory or regulatory waivers and workflex waivers to a National Emergency Grant award. The application for grant funds must describe any statutory waivers which the applicant wishes to apply to the project that the State and/or Local Board, as applicable, have been granted under its waiver plan, or that the State has approved for implementation in the applicable local area under workflex waivers. We will consider such requests as part of the overall application review and decision process.
( b ) If, during the operation of the project, the grantee wishes to apply a waiver not identified in the application, the grantee must request a modification which includes the provision to be waived, the operational barrier to be removed and the effect upon the outcome of the project.
### §3305. The American Institute in Taiwan

#### (a) Conduct of programs, transactions, or other relations with respect to Taiwan

Programs, transactions, and other relations conducted or carried out by the President or any agency of the United States Government with respect to Taiwan shall, in the manner and to the extent directed by the President, be conducted and carried out by or through—

(1) The American Institute in Taiwan, a nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, or

(2) such comparable successor nongovernmental entity as the President may designate,

(hereafter in this chapter referred to as the "Institute").

#### (b) Agreements or transactions relative to Taiwan entered into, performed, and enforced

Whenever the President or any agency of the United States Government is authorized or required by or pursuant to the laws of the United States to enter into, perform, enforce, or have in force an agreement or transaction relative to Taiwan, such agreement or transaction shall be entered into, performed, and enforced, in the manner and to the extent directed by the President, by or through the Institute.

#### (c) Preemption of laws, rules, regulations, or ordinances of District of Columbia, States, or political subdivisions of States

To the extent that any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the District of Columbia, or of any State or political subdivision thereof in which the Institute is incorporated or doing business, impedes or otherwise interferes with the performance of the functions of the Institute pursuant to this chapter, such law, rule, regulation, or ordinance shall be deemed to be preempted by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 96–8, §6, Apr. 10, 1979, 93 Stat. 17.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective as of January 1, 1979, see section 18 of Pub. L. 96–8, set out as a note under section 3301 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.966 Work which exists in the national economy. ( a ) *General.* We consider that work exists in the national economy when it exists in significant numbers either in the region where you live or in several other regions of the country. It does not matter whether— ( 1 ) Work exists in the immediate area in which you live;
( 2 ) A specific job vacancy exists for you; or
( 3 ) You would be hired if you applied for work.
( b ) *How we determine the existence of work.* Work exists in the national economy when there is a significant number of jobs (in one or more occupations) having requirements which you are able to meet with your physical or mental abilities and vocational qualifications. Isolated jobs that exist only in very limited numbers in relatively few locations outside of the region where you live are not considered *work which exists in the national economy.* We will not deny you disability benefits on the basis of the existence of these kinds of jobs. If work that you can do does not exist in the national economy, we will determine that you are disabled. However, if work that you can do does exist in the national economy, we will determine that you are not disabled.
( c ) *Inability to obtain work.* We will determine that you are not disabled if your residual functional capacity and vocational abilities make it possible for you to do work which exists in the national economy, but you remain unemployed because of— ( 1 ) Your inability to get work;
( 2 ) Lack of work in your local area;
( 3 ) The hiring practices of employers;
( 4 ) Technological changes in the industry in which you have worked;
( 5 ) Cyclical economic conditions;
( 6 ) No job openings for you;
( 7 ) You would not actually be hired to do work you could otherwise do, or;
( 8 ) You do not wish to do a particular type of work.
( d ) *Administrative notice of job data.* When we determine that unskilled, sedentary, light, and medium jobs exist in the national economy (in significant numbers either in the region where you live or in several regions of the country), we will take administrative notice of reliable job information available from various governmental and other publications. For example, we will take notice of— ( 1 ) *Dictionary of Occupational Titles,* published by the Department of Labor;
( 2 ) *County Business Patterns,* published by the Bureau of the Census;
( 3 ) *Census Reports,* also published by the Bureau of the Census;
( 4 ) *Occupational Analyses* prepared for the Social Security Administration by various State employment agencies; and
( 5 ) *Occupational Outlook Handbook,* published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
( e ) *Use of vocational experts and other specialists.* If the issue in determining whether you are disabled is whether your work skills can be used in other work and the specific occupations in which they can be used, or there is a similarly complex issue, we may use the services of a vocational expert or other specialist. We will decide whether to use a vocational expert or other specialist.
### §7111. Report by Secretary of State

At least 15 days prior to voting for a new or reauthorized peacekeeping mission under the auspices of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or any other multilateral organization in which the United States participates (or in an emergency, as far in advance as is practicable), the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and any other appropriate congressional committee a report that contains—

(A) a description of measures taken by the organization to prevent the organization's employees, contractor personnel, and peacekeeping forces serving in the peacekeeping mission from trafficking in persons, exploiting victims of trafficking, or committing acts of sexual exploitation or abuse, and the measures in place to hold accountable any such individuals who engage in any such acts while participating in the peacekeeping mission; and

(B) an analysis of the effectiveness of each of the measures referred to in subparagraph (A).

(Pub. L. 109–164, title I, §104(e)(2), Jan. 10, 2006, 119 Stat. 3566; Pub. L. 110–457, title III, §304(b), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 5087.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, and not as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–457 substituted "Committee on Foreign Affairs" for "Committee on International Relations" in introductory provisions.
#### Mary Ludlam, Respondent, v. Henry A. Ludlam and Others, Appellants.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 10.8


 


关于《独家业务合作协议》、《独家购买权合同》、《股权质押协议》、《按期申报协议》、《授权委托书》之终止协议


 


本终止协议(“本协议”)由以下双方于2018年11月8日在北京朝阳签署:


 


		(1)	天行皓车(北京)科技有限公司(下称“天行皓车”),一家中国设立的外商独资企业,地址为北京市朝阳区清河营东路2号院2号楼15层1522号;



 


		(2)	北京有教科技有限公司(下称“北京有教”),一家依照中国法律设立和存在的公司,地址为北京市密云区太师屯镇永安街镇政府办公楼415-2351;



 


鉴于:


 


		(1)	2018年6月15日,各方签署了《独家业务合作协议》、《独家购买权合同》、《股权质押协议》、《按期申报协议》、《授权委托书》等相关文件(“VIE协议”)。



 


		(2)	各方拟终止投资协议的履行。



 


经协商一致,各方同意签署本协议:


 


		1.	VIE协议终止



 


		1.1	VIE协议全部终止;



 


		1.2	各方不再对对方负有任何权力和义务,未执行的条款不再执行。



 


		2.	协议生效



 


		2.1	本协议自签署之日起,对签署各方产生约束力;



 


		2.2	天行皓车需在本协议签订之日起3日内,向北京有教支付回购款0元。



 


		2.3	本协议自北京有教收到回购款之时,即刻生效。



 


		3.	保密



 


		3.1	未经对方书面许可,任何一方不得向第三方(有关法律、法规、政府部门、证券交易所或其它监管机构要求和甲乙双方的法律、会计、商业及其它顾问、授权雇员除外)泄露本协议的条款的任何内容以及本协议的签订及履行情况,以及通过签订和履行本协议而获知的对方及对方关联公司的任何信息。但是为了境外交易之目的,将本协议披露给本次境外交易的其他投资者除外。



 


		3.2	本协议有效期内及终止后2年内,本保密条款仍具有法律效力。



 






    1


     


    

 


		4.	违约责任



 


		4.1	违约赔偿。任何一方违反本协议的约定,在收到守约方通知后30个工作日内违约状况仍未改变的,违约方应当赔偿因其违约行为给守约方造成的一切损失、损害、责任、成本或支出,包括但不限于合理的诉讼/仲裁费用、公证费和律师费。



 


		4.2	本协议规定的权利和救济是累积的,并不排斥法律规定的其他权利或者救济。本协议所规定各方的义务是特殊、特定、且非一般性的,因此在任何一方违约时,损害赔偿如不足以弥补损失,非违约方有权要求违约方实际履行。



 


		5.	不可抗力



 


		5.1	不可抗力是指协议各方不能合理控制、不可预见或即使预见亦无法避免的事件,该事件妨碍、影响或延误任何一方根据协议履行其全部或部分义务。该事件包括但不限于政府行为、自然灾害、战争或任何其它类似事件。



 


		5.2	出现不可抗力事件时,知情方应及时、充分地向对方以书面形式发通知,并告知对方该类事件对本协议可能产生的影响,并应当在合理期限内提供相关证明。



 


		5.3	由于以上所述不可抗力事件致使协议的部分或全部不能履行或延迟履行,则协议各方于彼此间不承担任何违约责任。



 


		6.	适用法律及争议解决



 


		6.1	以中华人民共和国法律为本协议的适用法律。



 


		6.2	如果协议各方因本协议或本协议的任何条款的解释或执行而发生争议、索赔或争端(以下总称“争议”),协议各方应一秉善意,及时进行友好协商,以尽量合乎双方意图和目的的方式来解决争议。如果各方无法在三十天内解决此种争议,应将该争端提交仲裁,该种仲裁应当提交北京仲裁委员会根据其现行有效的仲裁规则进行裁决,仲裁裁决具有最终和排它的约束力。



 


		7.	其他



 


		7.1	本协议由各方签字方为有效。



 


		7.2	本协议的任何一方未能及时行使本协议项下的权利不应被视为放弃该权利,也不影响该方在将来行使该权利。



 


		7.3	如果本协议中的任何条款无论因何种原因完全或部分无效或不具有执行力,或违反任何适用的法律,则该条款被视为删除,但本协议的其余条款仍应有效并且有约束力。



 


		7.4	本协议未尽事宜由协议各方友好协商后,以书面形式加以补充,该补充协议与本协议具有同等法律效力。



 


		7.5	本协议附件为本协议不可分割的一部分,与本协议有同等法律效力。



 


		7.6	本协议一式两份,协议各方各持壹份,具有同等法律效力。



 


(本行以下无正文)


 



    2


     


    

 


	本页无正文,为《终止协议》之签字页	 
	 	 
	天行皓车(北京)科技有限公司	 
	 	 	 
	授权代表:	/s/ Jialin Cui	 
	 	 	 
	北京有教科技有限公司	 
	 	 	 
	授权代表:	/s/ Aizhen Li	 


 


终止协议签字页
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                               MARWICH II, LTD.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.D. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marwich II, Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Schumacher, President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 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), as applicable, 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.



/s/ Michael Schumacher
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Hydrogeology of the RamapoRiver-Woodbury Creek Valley-fill aquifer system and adjacent areas in easternOrange county, New York**
 
Report | Plate 1| Appendix 1 | Appendix 2
 
SuDoc Number:0624-B-02 (online)
Item Number:I 19.42/4-4:2014-5156
CGP systemNumber:001054341
 
April 25, 2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7662

LARKLAND RICHARDS, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. HENRY MCMASTER; JON OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN, Trenton Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:06-cv-03343-MBS) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larkland Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Melony Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larkland Richards 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 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
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

 1,066.09

 1,065.51

 1,064.81

 1,064.17

 1,063.66

 1,063.44

 1,063.25

 1,063.29

 1,063.52

 1,063.84

 1,064.32

 1,064.81

 1,064.97

 1,065.05

 1,065.16

 1,065.31

 1,065.26

 1,065.19

 1,065.06

 1,064.86

 1,064.60

 1,064.47

 1,064.37

 1,064.30

 1,064.21

 1,064.10

 1,063.96

 1,063.73

 1,063.48

 1,063.29

 1,063.07

 4,525.0

 4,507.8

 4,487.1

 4,468.3

 4,453.3

 4,446.8

 4,441.3

 4,442.4

 4,449.2

 4,458.6

 4,472.7

 4,487.1

 4,491.9

 4,494.2

 4,497.5

 4,501.9

 4,500.4

 4,498.4

 4,494.5

 4,488.6

 4,481.0

 4,477.1

 4,474.2

 4,472.1

 4,469.5

 4,466.2

 4,462.1

 4,455.3

 4,448.0

 4,442.4

 4,436.0

STORAGE

-11.6

-17.2

-20.7

-18.9

-15.0

-6.5

-5.6

+1.2

+6.7

+9.4

+14.1

+14.4

+4.7

+2.4

+3.3

+4.4

-1.5

-2.1

-3.8

-5.9

-7.7

-3.8

-2.9

-2.1

-2.7

-3.2

-4.1

-6.7

-7.3

-5.6

-6.5

CHANGE

 22,927

 20,157

 19,016

 18,109

 16,272

 15,951

 14,282

 14,319

 16,102

 14,531

 14,916

 14,201

 13,861

 13,317

 14,398

 13,926

 12,158

 11,836

 11,180

 9,963

 9,049

 11,114

 10,982

 10,319

 9,476

 10,211

 9,897

 8,869

 8,131

 8,657

 7,565

INFLOW

 13,674

 12,326

 13,653

 13,657

 13,638

 13,564

 13,592

 13,554

 12,674

 9,677

 7,795

 6,790

 11,352

 11,916

 12,451

 11,469

 12,618

 12,620

 12,729

 12,713

 12,634

 12,750

 12,208

 11,055

 10,554

 11,732

 11,679

 11,933

 11,596

 11,225

 10,629

POWER

 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

SPILL

 14,970

 16,372

 15,677

 13,874

 10,172

 5,468

 3,500

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 131

 122

 122

 87

 17

 173

 0

 173

 26

 121

 0

 130

 131

 209

 305

 218

 287

 261

 392

 226

 278

 295

 260

 304

 260

 113

 295

 338

 233

 242

 190

C.F.S.

 .15

 .14

 .14

 .10

 .02

 .20

 .00

 .20

 .03

 .14

 .00

 .15

 .15

 .24

 .35

 .25

 .33

 .30

 .45

 .26

 .32

 .34

 .30

 .35

 .30

 .13

 .34

 .39

 .27

 .28

 .22

INCHES

 .05

 .00

 .45

 .50

 .00

 .00

 .07

 .00

 .01

 .01

 .12

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2003 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 12, 2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS -100.8 405,692 370,457 0 80,033 5,939 6.84 1.23

ACRE-FEET -100,800 804,690 734,801 0 158,745 11,780

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 734,801

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 158,745

 893,546

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.23

JULY 1, 2002 73.41

 4,536.6
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to  the  use  in  this  Pre-Effective  Amendment  No.  4 to
Registration  Statement on Form S-1 of our report dated June 10, 1999 (except as
to the second  paragraph  of Note 1, Note 10 and Note 16,  which is as of August
23, 1999) relating to the financial  statements and financial statement schedule
of Intellesale.com,  Inc. and its predecessor companies, which appear in such
Registration  Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the
heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
December 30, 1999