alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 966.60

 966.39

 966.19

 966.07

 965.98

 965.93

 965.84

 965.68

 965.44

 965.19

 965.16

 965.76

 966.21

 966.39

 966.49

 966.67

 966.78

 966.84

 966.88

 966.94

 967.90

 969.13

 969.66

 970.36

 970.84

 971.15

 971.37

 971.87

 972.52

 973.13

 2,164.0

 2,160.2

 2,156.6

 2,154.4

 2,152.8

 2,151.9

 2,150.3

 2,147.4

 2,143.1

 2,138.6

 2,138.0

 2,148.8

 2,156.9

 2,160.2

 2,162.0

 2,165.2

 2,167.2

 2,168.3

 2,169.0

 2,170.1

 2,187.6

 2,210.1

 2,219.8

 2,232.8

 2,241.6

 2,247.4

 2,251.5

 2,260.8

 2,272.9

 2,284.4

STORAGE

-3.1

-3.8

-3.6

-2.2

-1.6

-0.9

-1.6

-2.9

-4.3

-4.5

-0.5

+10.8

+8.1

+3.3

+1.8

+3.3

+2.0

+1.1

+0.7

+1.1

+17.5

+22.5

+9.8

+12.9

+8.9

+5.8

+4.1

+9.3

+12.2

+11.4

CHANGE

 3,881

 3,739

 3,594

 3,719

 3,935

 4,385

 3,952

 3,663

 3,266

 2,755

 4,506

 10,249

 8,414

 6,117

 5,235

 5,628

 4,994

 4,435

 4,750

 5,005

 12,727

 14,638

 8,373

 10,486

 7,627

 6,486

 5,994

 8,432

 9,538

 9,207

INFLOW

 5,431

 5,638

 5,396

 4,813

 4,750

 4,838

 4,768

 5,102

 5,415

 4,995

 4,778

 4,811

 4,325

 4,476

 4,323

 3,987

 3,991

 3,888

 4,385

 4,458

 3,927

 3,292

 3,456

 3,973

 3,149

 3,586

 3,929

 3,740

 3,410

 3,442

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

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

OUTLET

 0

 16

 21

 0

 5

 0

 0

 11

 26

 26

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .00

 .03

 .04

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .05

 .05

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .44

 1.66

 4.19

 1.29

 .10

 .13

 .36

 .00

 .00

 .21

 .77

 2.79

 .00

 1.40

 .23

 .00

 .00

 .33

 3.26

 .10

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2001 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 14, 2001

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS +117.6 189,730 130,472 0 0 105 .20 17.26

ACRE-FEET +117,600 376,329 258,791 0 0 208

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 258,791

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 258,791

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 17.26

JULY 1, 2001 19.22

 2,167.1

Table 3
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

DAY ELEV

 221.86

 220.27

 220.30

 220.76

 220.77

 221.09

 219.68

 220.58

 221.56

 220.03

 219.19

 220.18

 219.56

 218.54

 219.48

 220.02

 220.36

 220.96

 221.54

 221.74

 220.61

 221.94

 221.85

 220.90

 219.91

 220.60

 220.37

 220.19

 220.51

 48,019

 43,853

 43,931

 45,132

 45,158

 45,996

 42,325

 44,661

 47,230

 43,230

 41,068

 43,619

 42,016

 39,423

 41,810

 43,204

 44,088

 45,656

 47,178

 47,703

 44,740

 48,229

 47,992

 45,498

 42,919

 44,714

 44,114

 43,645

 44,479

STORAGE

+3,827

-4,166

+78

+1,201

+26

+838

-3,671

+2,336

+2,569

-4,000

-2,162

+2,551

-1,603

-2,593

+2,387

+1,394

+884

+1,568

+1,522

+525

-2,963

+3,489

-237

-2,494

-2,579

+1,795

-600

-469

+834

CHANGE

2,433

1,987

1,596

1,508

1,495

1,757

1,976

1,960

2,070

2,050

2,310

2,724

2,961

2,885

2,775

2,644

2,486

2,521

2,377

2,524

2,618

2,696

2,516

2,271

1,859

1,667

1,837

2,064

2,082

PUMPING

 0

 1,213

 0

 0

 208

 625

 0

 0

 208

 833

 1,042

 729

 416

 313

 625

 729

 729

 208

 833

 625

 208

 625

 208

 986

 959

 1,044

 2,114

 1,877

 2,671

PUMPING

 2,397

 4,251

 2,281

 2,190

 2,738

 2,190

 5,110

 2,373

 1,460

 5,310

 4,523

 3,128

 5,263

 6,329

 3,074

 3,612

 3,604

 3,605

 2,970

 3,600

 6,477

 2,152

 4,853

 5,370

 4,099

 1,953

 2,130

 3,017

 1,420

PUMPING

 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

GEN.

*

-124

+187

-172

+24

-98

+36

-205

+32

-97

+116

-207

-119

-232

-54

-208

+162

-134

+6

+27

-118

-154

-64

-158

+140

-194

+51

+56

+137

+87

OR

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL O'NEILL FOREBAY April 4, 2016

DAILY OPERATIONS

FEBRUARY 2016 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE GEN.

ACRE-FEET O'NEILL

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +287 64,649 0 101,479 20,028 -1,277

ACRE-FEET +287 128,231 0 201,284 39,726

SUMMARY

 72

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

O'NEILL GEN. 0

SAN LUIS PUMP 201,284 72

 44,192

DOS AMIGOS PUMP 39,726

DELIVERIES 

S. LUIS O'NEILL

 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

CALIF. DOS AMIGOS

AQUEDUCT

2,017

1,189

897

1,263

1,561

1,444

1,488

1,558

991

1,961

2,372

2,538

2,143

2,503

2,336

2,238

2,427

2,077

2,167

2,084

2,728

1,904

2,583

2,688

2,092

2,183

2,048

2,457

2,379

 58,316

 115,670

S. LUIS

DELIV.

GAINS(+)

LOSS(-)

C.F.S.

INFLOW - C.F.S.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

TOTAL 241,082

-2,533

* DAILY DEL. FIGURES UNAVAILABLE. TOT. DEL. IS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING MONTHLY TOTALS 

Table 18
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation will be held on May 8-9, 2012, in Room 1046 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The sessions will begin at 8 a.m. each day and adjourn at 5 p.m. on May 8 and at noon on May 9. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and on the administration of VA's rehabilitation programs.

During the meeting, the Committee will receive briefing updates on various VA programs designed to enhance the rehabilitative potential of recently-discharged Veterans. Members will also begin consideration of potential recommendations to be included in the Committee's next annual report.

                    No time will be allocated at this meeting for oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments for review by the Committee to Mrs. Teri Nguyen, Designated Federal Officer, VA, Veterans Benefits Administration (28), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or via email at                     *Teri.Nguyen1@va.gov.*                     In the communication with the Committee, writers must identify themselves and state the organization, association or person(s) they represent. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting should contact Ms. Nguyen at (202) 461-9634.                

Dated: April 24, 2012.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Vivian Drake,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-10243 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
### §6471. Use of Annual Report

The Annual Report, together with other relevant documentation, shall serve as a resource for immigration judges and consular, refugee, and asylum officers in cases involving claims of persecution on the grounds of religion. Absence of reference by the Annual Report to conditions described by the alien shall not constitute the sole grounds for a denial of the alien's claim.

(Pub. L. 105–292, title VI, §601, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2812.)

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.610 Automated vessel exception to prohibition on utilization of alien crewmember(s) to perform longshore activity(ies) at a U.S. port. ( a ) The Act establishes a rebuttable presumption that the prevailing practice in U.S. ports is for automated vessels (*i.e.,* vessels equipped with automated self- unloading conveyor belts or vacuum-actuated systems) to use alien crewmembers to perform longshore activity(ies) through the use of the self-unloading equipment. An employer claiming the automated vessel exception does not have the burden of establishing eligibility for the exception.
( b ) In the event of a complaint asserting that an employer claiming the automated vessel exception is not eligible for such exception, the Administrator shall determine whether the preponderance of the evidence submitted by any interested party shows that: ( 1 ) It is not the prevailing practice at the U.S. port to use alien crewmember(s) to perform the longshore activity(ies) through the use of the self-unloading equipment; or
( 2 ) The employer is using alien crewmembers to perform longshore activity(ies)— ( i ) During a strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute at the U.S. port; and/or
( ii ) With intent or design to influence an election of a bargaining representative for workers at the U.S. port.
( c ) In making the prevailing practice determination required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether, in the 12-month period preceding the date of the Administrator's receipt of the complaint, one of the following conditions existed: ( 1 ) Over fifty percent of the automated vessels docking at the port used alien crewmembers for the activity (for purposes of this paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a vessel shall be counted each time it docks at the particular port); or
( 2 ) Alien crewmembers made up over fifty percent of the workers who performed the activity with respect to such automated vessels.
( d ) An interested party, complaining that the automated vessel exception is not applicable to a particular employer, shall provide to the Administrator evidence such as: ( 1 ) A written summary of a survey of the experience of masters of automated vessels which entered the local port in the previous year, describing the practice in the port as to the use of alien crewmembers;
( 2 ) A letter, affidavit, or other written statement from an appropriate local port authority regarding the use of alien crewmembers to perform the longshore activity at the port in the previous year;
( 3 ) Written statements from collective bargaining representatives and/or shipping agents with direct knowledge of practices regarding the use of alien crewmembers at the port in the previous year.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4353 

To extend the exemption of small banks and savings associations from classification as a financial entity for purposes of the swaps clearing requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act to their holding companies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2016 

Mr. EMMER of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To extend the exemption of small banks and savings associations from classification as a financial entity for purposes 

of the swaps clearing requirements of the Commodity 

Exchange Act to their holding companies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY CLEARING 

4 EXEMPTION. 

5 Section 2(h)(7)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

6 (7 U.S.C. 2(h)(7)(C)) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4353 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) HOLDING COMPANIES.—A deter2 mination made by the Commission under 

3 clause (ii) shall, with respect to small 

4 banks and savings associations, also apply 

5 to their respective bank holding company 

6 (as defined in section 2 of the Bank Hold7 ing Company Act of 1956), or savings and 

8 loan holding company (as defined in sec9 tion 10 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 

10 1933), if the total consolidated assets of 

11 the holding company are no greater than 

12 the asset threshold set by the Commission 

13 in determining small bank and savings as14 sociation eligibility under clause (ii).’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Gerald F. Beal et al., as Executors of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased. William A. Nunlist et al., as Trustees for Hazel W. Nunlist; Gerald E. Beal et al., as Executors of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased, et al. In the Matter of the Will of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased. William A. Nunlist et al., as Trustees for Hazel W. Nunlist; Gerald F. Beal et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased, et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Glennon, J., taking no part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY RANDALL BREEDEN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-00-70020) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Woodford, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellant. Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Lindsay, Alan Hechtkopf, S. Robert Lyons, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey R. Breeden was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted income tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (1994), and two counts of willful failure to file tax returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7203(1994), for which he was sentenced to thirty-six months imprisonment. Breeden appeals, claiming that the district court erred in refusing to give two proffered jury instructions. We review the district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Russell , 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Lozano , 839 F.2d 1020, 1024 (4thCir. 1988). A district court has discretion to choose among proposed instructions and to determine the content of its charge to the jury, Russell , 971 F.2d at 1107, as long as, when “viewed as a whole in the context of the trial, the charge was not misleading and contained an adequate statement of the law to guide the jury’s determination,” United States v. Park , 421 U.S. 658, 675 (1975). Viewing the jury instructions in the context of the entire trial, we conclude that they were proper in all respects. We therefore find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 663.120 Are displaced homemakers eligible for dislocated worker activities under WIA? ( a ) Yes, there are two significant differences from the eligibility requirements under the Job Training Partnership Act.
( b ) Under the dislocated worker program in JTPA, displaced homemakers are defined as “additional dislocated workers” and are only eligible to receive services if the Governor determines that providing such services would not adversely affect the delivery of services to the other eligible dislocated workers. Under WIA section 101(9), displaced homemakers who meet the definition at WIA section 101(10) are eligible dislocated workers without any additional determination.
( c ) The definition of displaced homemaker under JTPA included individuals who had been dependent upon public assistance under Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as well as those who had been dependent on the income of another family member. The definition in WIA section 101(10) includes only those individuals who were dependent on a family member's income. Those individuals who have been dependent on public assistance may be served in the adult program.
(No. 4411

#### Ulysses F. Gossage, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 8, 1951.*

Ulysses F. Gossage, Claimant, pro se.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*322Lansden, J.

Claimant, Ulysses F. Gossage, seeks to recover from respondent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the loss of the first phalange of his left index finger in an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment in the Division of Parks and Memorials of the Department of Public Works and Buildings.

All of the facts in this case have been stipulated, and such stipulation is hereby approved. The writer of this opinion has personally examined claimant’s left index finger. No jurisdictional questions are involved.

On August 1, 1950, claimant was operating a power mower at Fort Massac State Park at Metropolis, Illinois, lie stopped to adjust the mower, and the wrench that he was using slipped causing the index finger on his left hand to be caught in the blades of the mower. The end of his finger was shattered, and the bone was removed to the first joint.

Claimant is entitled to an award under Section 8 (e) 2, 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for a 50 per cent loss of his left index finger.

On the date of the accident claimant was 47 years of age, and had no children under the age of 18 years dependent upon him for support. He had been employed by respondent only since April 1, 1950, and his rate of pay and that of other employees in the same classification exceeded the sum of $1,560.00 annually. His rate of compensation is, therefore, $22.50 per week.

Claimant worked regularly after the accident with *323no loss of time, and all medical and surgical services were furnished and paid by respondent.

An award is, therefore, entered in favor of claimant, Ulysses F. Gossage, under Section 8 (e) 2, 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for a 50 per cent loss of his left index finger, being 20 weeks at the rate- of $22.50 per week, or the sum of $450.00, all of which has accrued and is payable forthwith.

This award is subject to the approval of the Governor. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1949, Chap. 127, Sec. 180.
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

 591

 614

 586

 619

 609

 615

 625

 636

 640

 633

 643

 636

 642

 615

 666

 609

 715

 682

 697

 686

 660

 810

 665

 582

 580

 587

 584

 570

 577

 559

 558

 498

 462

 463

 477

 487

 497

 543

 542

 539

 546

 587

 532

 571

 522

 525

 519

 491

 488

 537

 521

 522

 517

 499

 506

 465

 406

 357

 307

 325

 299

 331

 558

 555

 539

 575

 567

 584

 591

 609

 609

 613

 623

 591

 598

 589

 585

 584

 582

 579

 602

 593

 587

 629

 562

 551

 544

 531

 518

 493

 486

 468

 479

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 1, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
### Part D—Separation of Officers and Employees From the Service
Exhibit 23.1


              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our report dated March 21, 2002, in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-92058) and related Prospectus of Aphton Corporation
for the Registration of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock.


                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Miami, FL
July 11, 2002
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JONATHAN ISRAEL SANCHEZVENEGAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50581

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02916-DMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

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

Jonathan Israel Sanchez-Venegas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

and 70-month sentence for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), SanchezFILED

FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50581

Venegas’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant

the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.