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

 838.62

 838.63

 838.63

 838.63

 838.65

 838.66

 838.66

 838.68

 838.69

 838.77

 838.78

 838.78

 838.79

 838.80

 838.80

 838.81

 838.81

 838.81

 838.81

 838.82

 838.82

 838.83

 838.83

 838.83

 838.83

 838.82

 838.80

 838.78

 838.77

 838.75

 838.73

 47.35

 47.36

 47.36

 47.36

 47.38

 47.40

 47.40

 47.42

 47.43

 47.53

 47.55

 47.55

 47.56

 47.57

 47.57

 47.58

 47.58

 47.58

 47.58

 47.60

 47.60

 47.61

 47.61

 47.61

 47.61

 47.60

 47.57

 47.55

 47.53

 47.51

 47.48

STORAGE

+0.04

+0.01

+0.00

+0.00

+0.03

+0.01

+0.00

+0.03

+0.01

+0.10

+0.01

+0.00

+0.01

+0.01

+0.00

+0.01

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

+0.01

+0.00

+0.01

+0.00

+0.00

+0.00

-0.01

-0.03

-0.03

-0.01

-0.03

-0.03

CHANGE

72

58

52

53

63

57

53

64

58

102

68

51

59

58

52

58

51

51

52

57

51

56

49

50

50

44

39

38

43

38

38

INFLOW

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

SPILL

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 37

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

 27

OUTLET

 16

 15

 15

 16

 13

 14

 16

 14

 14

 15

 14

 14

 15

 15

 15

 14

 14

 14

 15

 14

 14

 12

 12

 13

 13

 14

 15

 14

 13

 14

 14

C.F.S.

 .39

 .38

 .38

 .40

 .32

 .35

 .39

 .35

 .36

 .38

 .36

 .36

 .37

 .38

 .37

 .34

 .35

 .36

 .37

 .36

 .34

 .31

 .31

 .33

 .32

 .35

 .37

 .36

 .33

 .34

 .34

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-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2011 RUN DATE: 09/01/2011

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +.15 1,685 847 310 440 11.02 .00

ACRE-FEET +150 3,342 1,680 615 873

COMMENTS:

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

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 615

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,680

 2,295

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2011 .00

 47.31

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
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

 107

 108

 106

 108

 104

 105

 103

 99

 97

 96

 100

 102

 101

 97

 100

 102

 108

 104

 105

 109

 103

 111

 105

 103

 113

 112

 120

 107

 125

 115

 114

 101

 99

 98

 97

 93

 90

 91

 90

 91

 91

 91

 93

 94

 94

 94

 93

 94

 96

 97

 98

 95

 94

 95

 95

 97

 100

 102

 103

 105

 106

 106

 103

 103

 101

 100

 99

 96

 94

 95

 94

 93

 94

 96

 96

 96

 97

 96

 98

 100

 100

 102

 99

 99

 97

 98

 99

 103

 105

 104

 109

 109

 109

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.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         19,094
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 7,857,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,304,726
<INVENTORY>                                    594,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               784,809
<PP&E>                                         4,600,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,794,848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,596,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,657,916
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       482,526
<OTHER-SE>                                     90,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,596,496
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              30,781,926
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,706,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,058,376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              2,444,356
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,372,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,800,103)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,800,103)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.60)




</TABLE>
§ 725.490 Statutory provisions and scope. ( a ) One of the major purposes of the black lung benefits amendments of 1977 was to provide a more effective means of transferring the responsibility for the payment of benefits from the Federal government to the coal industry with respect to claims filed under this part. In furtherance of this goal, a Black Lung Disability Trust Fund financed by the coal industry was established by the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977. The primary purpose of the Fund is to pay benefits with respect to all claims in which the last coal mine employment of the miner on whose account the claim was filed occurred before January 1, 1970. With respect to most claims in which the miner's last coal mine employment occurred after January 1, 1970, individual coal mine operators will be liable for the payment of benefits. The 1981 amendments to the Act relieved individual coal mine operators from the liability for payment of certain special claims involving coal mine employment on or after January 1, 1970, where the claim was previously denied and subsequently approved under section 435 of the Act. See § 725.496 for a detailed description of these special claims. Where no such operator exists or the operator determined to be liable is in default in any case, the fund shall pay the benefits due and seek reimbursement as is appropriate. See also § 725.420 for the fund's role in the payment of interim benefits in certain contested cases. In addition, the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 amended certain provisions affecting the scope of coverage under the Act and describing the effects of particular corporate transactions on the liability of operators.
( b ) The provisions of this subpart define the term “operator” and prescribe the manner in which the identity of an operator which may be liable for the payment of benefits—referred to herein as a “responsible operator”—will be determined.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-41033

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ESCALERA-DIAZ, also

known as Rene Delgado-Diaz,

Defendant-Appellant.

******************************************************************

Consolidated with

_____________________

No. 99-41091

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ESCALERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-99-CR-202-0

USDC No. B-96-CR-145-1

_________________________________________________________________

July 11, 2000
 

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Escalera-Diaz asserts only that the district court did

not afford him the right of allocution before imposing sentence on

his conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b) and before

imposing sentence on the revocation of supervised release. The

government agrees that the sentences should be vacated and the

cases remanded so that Escalera-Diaz may be afforded the right of

allocution.

The district court shall, before imposing sentence, “address

the defendant personally and determine whether the defendant wishes

to make a statement and to present any information in mitigation of

the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C) (West 2000). In

sentencing upon revocation of supervised release, the defendant is

entitled to the right of allocution. See United States v.

Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir. 1994).

The issue of the denial of the right to allocution is not

subject to harmless or plain error analysis. See United States v.

Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786, 789 (5th Cir. 1999). We review

the record de novo to determine whether the district court afforded

a defendant the right to allocution. Id.
3

The record demonstrates that the district court did not comply

with Rule 32(c)(3)(C). Accordingly, Escalera-Diaz’s sentences are

VACATED and the cases are REMANDED for resentencing.

VACATED and REMANDED.
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

 733.81

 729.38

 730.94

 732.25

 733.36

 734.36

 729.97

 725.60

 726.44

 727.30

 728.10

 728.85

 725.50

 726.21

 726.87

 727.50

 721.68

 723.09

 723.26

 721.39

 721.01

 721.04

 721.27

 721.18

 721.02

 721.58

 722.34

 723.03

 723.68

 1,741

 1,550

 1,615

 1,672

 1,721

 1,765

 1,575

 1,396

 1,430

 1,464

 1,497

 1,528

 1,393

 1,420

 1,447

 1,473

 1,247

 1,299

 1,306

 1,236

 1,222

 1,223

 1,232

 1,229

 1,223

 1,243

 1,272

 1,297

 1,322

STORAGE

-304

-191

+65

+57

+49

+44

-190

-179

+34

+34

+33

+31

-135

+27

+27

+26

-226

+52

+7

-70

-14

+1

+9

-3

-6

+20

+29

+25

+25

CHANGE

27

25

33

29

25

22

9

2

17

17

17

16

7

14

14

13

-9

26

28

12

15

14

14

12

10

14

15

13

13

INFLOW

 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

 180

 121

 0

 0

 0

 0

 105

 92

 0

 0

 0

 0

 75

 0

 0

 0

 105

 0

 24

 47

 22

 13

 9

 14

 13

 4

 0

 0

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2016 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 1, 2016

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -723 464 0 824

ACRE-FEET -723 920 0 1,634

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,634

 1,634

 2,045

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
(No. 73-CC-410

#### Public Electric Construction Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 5, 1974.*

Landesman & Schwartz, Attorney for Claimant.

*439William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler and Martin A. Soll, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C. J.

This cause coming on to be heard on the Joint Stipulation of the parties hereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

This Court Finds that this claim is for labor and material services rendered by Claimant as per Change Order No. 3 dated October 1, 1971, for alterations to computer area, Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, 165 North Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois (Project Number 71-8500-7E, award number 71352, dated March 5, 1971). An investigation of this claim by the Illinois Capital Development Board determined that United States Government Funds were made available to the State of Illinois for this expenditure. A pre-trial conference was held on the 28th day of April, 1974, before the Honorable Joseph Griffin, Commissioner of the Court of Claims pursuant to notice. At the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed that the sum of $5,946.00 (Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Six Dollars) is due and owing to Claimant for materials and services rendered pursuant to the above mentioned Change Order and Claimant’s complaint, the same having been confirmed by the Joint Stipulation filed by the parties.

It Is Therefore Determined and Declared that Claimant has an enforceable claim against federal funds in the amount of $5,946.00 (Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Six Dollars) for services rendered as per the Change Order No. 3 dated October 1, 1971, for alterations to computer area, Department of Labor, *440Bureau of Employment Security, 165 North Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois (Project Number 71-8500-7E, award number 71352 dated March 5, 1971.

It Is Further Determined and Declared that this claim be paid from the appropriate federal funds available to the Respondent.
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

 812.02

 811.98

 811.94

 811.93

 811.89

 811.86

 811.82

 811.79

 811.77

 811.79

 811.77

 811.76

 811.75

 811.70

 811.70

 811.68

 811.66

 811.64

 811.63

 811.60

 811.58

 811.54

 811.52

 811.49

 811.49

 811.47

 811.44

 811.44

 811.42

 811.39

 811.35

 20.40

 20.37

 20.34

 20.34

 20.30

 20.28

 20.25

 20.23

 20.21

 20.23

 20.21

 20.20

 20.20

 20.16

 20.16

 20.14

 20.13

 20.11

 20.11

 20.08

 20.07

 20.04

 20.02

 20.00

 20.00

 19.98

 19.96

 19.96

 19.95

 19.92

 19.89

STORAGE

-0.02

-0.03

-0.03

-0.01

-0.03

-0.02

-0.03

-0.02

-0.02

+0.02

-0.02

-0.01

-0.01

-0.04

+0.00

-0.02

-0.02

-0.02

-0.01

-0.02

-0.02

-0.03

-0.02

-0.02

+0.00

-0.02

-0.02

+0.00

-0.02

-0.02

-0.03

CHANGE

7

3

3

15

0

6

3

6

8

26

8

12

16

-1

16

9

10

11

15

7

10

2

10

6

20

10

6

20

13

9

1

INFLOW

 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

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 9

 11

 10

 10

 10

 10

 11

 9

 9

 10

 10

 10

 10

OUTLET

 8

 8

 8

 8

 5

 7

 10

 9

 7

 9

 7

 7

 11

 9

 7

 8

 9

 10

 10

 8

 8

 7

 8

 8

 9

 9

 9

 10

 11

 11

 7

C.F.S.

 .34

 .33

 .34

 .34

 .21

 .27

 .40

 .35

 .29

 .38

 .30

 .29

 .46

 .38

 .30

 .34

 .35

 .39

 .41

 .34

 .32

 .30

 .34

 .34

 .35

 .36

 .36

 .42

 .44

 .43

 .28

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-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2015 RUN DATE: 09/02/2015

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -.56 287 303 0 262 10.75 .00

ACRE-FEET -560 569 601 0 520

COMMENTS:

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

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 601

 601

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2015 .24

 20.43

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
#### § 725.364 Authority of representative.

A representative, appointed and qualified as provided in §§ 725.362 and 725.363, may make or give on behalf of the party he or she represents, any request or notice relative to any proceeding before an adjudication officer, including formal hearing and review, except that such representative may not execute a claim for benefits, unless he or she is a person designated in § 725.301 as authorized to execute a claim. A representative shall be entitled to present or elicit evidence and make allegations as to facts and law in any proceeding affecting the party represented and to obtain information with respect to the claim of such party to the same extent as such party. Notice given to any party of any administrative action, determination, or decision, or request to any party for the production of evidence shall be sent to the representative of such party and such notice or request shall have the same force and effect as if it had been sent to the party represented.
§ 618.220 Use of subpoena. ( a ) The Administrator may require, by subpoena, in connection with any investigation or hearing, the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence the issuing official deems necessary to make a determination under this subpart.
( b ) The Department will issue a subpoena to secure evidence from a firm, customer, petitioner, or other person who fails to provide requested information within 20 days of the request, unless the recipient of the subpoena demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that the information will be provided within a reasonable time. In making this determination, the Department will consider the following factors: ( 1 ) Submission of a portion of the required information;
( 2 ) Prompt cooperation with inquiries about the information;
( 3 ) Cooperation in previous responses to information requests;
( 4 ) Evidence of effort to obtain the required information; and
( 5 ) Other information the Department determines to be relevant.
( c ) Witnesses subpoenaed under this section to appear in person must be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid for like services in the District Court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the proceeding is taking place. The Department must pay the witness fees and mileage.
( d ) Subpoenas issued under paragraph (a) of this section must be signed by the Administrator, or his or her designee, and must be served consistent with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The date for compliance must be 7 calendar days following service of the subpoena, unless otherwise indicated.
( e ) If the recipient of the subpoena refuses to provide the requested information, the Department may petition the appropriate District Court of the United States to seek enforcement of the subpoena.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Robert I. Jordan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Southern Sauce Company,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
     internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
     business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
     fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
     affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
     issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 controls
     over financial reporting.

Date: April 3, 2007

/s/ Robert I. Jordan
    President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Roberto JACOBO-RAMIREZ, also known as Manuel Roberto Ramirez-Jacobo, also known as Manuel Jacobo-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51217.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Manuel Roberto Jacobo-Ramirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for *671summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.