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

 758.67

 758.73

 758.82

 755.60

 752.25

 752.33

 752.40

 749.88

 744.59

 741.94

 742.00

 742.06

 740.09

 735.95

 732.24

 729.48

 727.57

 727.79

 728.03

 728.62

 729.17

 729.59

 729.88

 730.13

 730.35

 730.51

 730.65

 730.78

 730.94

 731.07

 3,090

 3,094

 3,100

 2,899

 2,697

 2,701

 2,706

 2,558

 2,264

 2,127

 2,130

 2,133

 2,035

 1,838

 1,672

 1,554

 1,475

 1,484

 1,494

 1,518

 1,541

 1,559

 1,571

 1,581

 1,591

 1,597

 1,603

 1,609

 1,615

 1,621

STORAGE

+5

+4

+6

-201

-202

+4

+5

-148

-294

-137

+3

+3

-98

-197

-166

-118

-79

+9

+10

+24

+23

+18

+12

+10

+10

+6

+6

+6

+6

+6

CHANGE

3

2

3

-3

-2

2

3

-5

-10

-3

2

2

-1

-3

-10

-9

-10

5

5

12

12

9

6

5

5

3

3

3

3

3

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

 0

 0

 98

 100

 0

 0

 70

 138

 66

 0

 0

 48

 96

 74

 50

 30

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2022 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 1, 2022

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -1,464 35 0 770

ACRE-FEET -1,464 69 0 1,527

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,527

 1,527

 3,085

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
### §901a. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, §2205(5), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2160

Section, Pub. L. 93–126, §6, Oct. 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 452; Pub. L. 93–475, §4(a), Oct. 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 1440; Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §112(e)(2), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1366, related to campaign contribution report by nominees for ambassador or minister.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.
§ 641.827 What general nondiscrimination requirements apply to the use of SCSEP funds? ( a ) SCSEP recipients, sub-recipients, and host agencies are required to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions codified in the Department's regulations at 29 CFR parts 31 and 32 and the provisions on the equal treatment of religious organizations at 29 CFR part 2 subpart D.
( b ) Recipients and sub-recipients of SCSEP funds are required to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions codified in the Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 38 if: ( 1 ) The recipient: ( i ) Is a One-Stop partner listed in sec. 121(b) of WIOA, and
( ii ) Operates programs and activities that are part of the One-Stop delivery system established under WIOA; or
( 2 ) The recipient otherwise satisfies the definition of “recipient” in 29 CFR 38.4.
( c ) Recipients must ensure that participants are provided informational materials relating to age discrimination and/or their rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1975 that are distributed to recipients by the Department as required by § 503(b)(3) of the OAA.
( d ) Questions about or complaints alleging a violation of the nondiscrimination requirements cited in this section may be directed or mailed to the Director, Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-4123, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210, for processing. (See § 641.910(d)).
( e ) The specification of any right or protection against discrimination in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section must not be interpreted to exclude or diminish any other right or protection against discrimination in connection with a SCSEP project that may be available to any participant, applicant for participation, or other individual under any applicable Federal, State, or local laws prohibiting discrimination, or their implementing regulations.
[75 FR 53812, Sept. 1, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 56886, Dec. 1, 2017]
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

 722.63

 722.63

 722.63

 722.62

 722.62

 722.62

 722.62

 722.61

 722.61

 722.59

 722.58

 720.02

 720.03

 720.03

 720.02

 720.00

 719.98

 719.96

 719.94

 719.94

 719.91

 719.92

 719.93

 719.91

 719.91

 719.91

 719.90

 719.91

 720.03

 720.12

 720.20

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,282

 1,281

 1,280

 1,187

 1,187

 1,187

 1,187

 1,186

 1,185

 1,185

 1,184

 1,184

 1,183

 1,183

 1,183

 1,183

 1,183

 1,183

 1,182

 1,183

 1,187

 1,190

 1,193

STORAGE

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-1

-1

-93

+0

+0

+0

-1

-1

+0

-1

+0

-1

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-1

+1

+4

+3

+3

CHANGE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

-9

0

0

0

-1

-1

0

-1

0

-1

0

0

0

0

0

-1

1

2

2

2

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

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 38

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2015 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 1, 2015

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -89 -9 0 38

ACRE-FEET -89 -18 0 75

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 75

 75

 1,282

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40315

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ-SANTANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-1545-ALL

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Ramirez-Santana pleaded guilty of illegal

reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to 60 months of

imprisonment.

For the first time on appeal, Ramirez argues that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), because they do not require
No. 04-40315

-2-

the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be

charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

As Ramirez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Ramirez also argues for the first time on appeal that if

Almendarez-Torres is overruled, the Supreme Court’s holding in

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004), renders

unconstitutional the district court’s calculation of his sentence

under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on facts

relating to his prior convictions that were neither found by a

jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted by him. Ramirez

concedes that in addition to the obstacle posed by

Almendarez-Torres, his argument regarding the effect of Blakely

is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66

(5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)

(No. 04-5263), in which this court held that Blakely does not

extend to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 89-1264.

#### Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. *v.*McNasby et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4434 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4434 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

3 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En5 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 13287, the 

6 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 

7 project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with 

8 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require9 ments of that section and the Commission’s procedures 

10 under that section, extend the time period during which 

11 the licensee is required to commence the construction of 

12 the project for up to four consecutive 2-year periods from 

13 the date of the expiration of the time period required for 

14 commencement of construction prescribed in the license. 

15 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the 

16 period required for commencement of construction of the 

17 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission may 

19 reinstate the license effective as of the date of its expira-
3 

•HR 4434 EH

1 tion and the first extension authorized under subsection 

2 (a) shall take effect on the date of such expiration. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4434 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project.
### §7908. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 101–240, title VII, §738, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title XVI, §1611, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 1117.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2005, except as otherwise provided, see section 739 of Pub. L. 101–240, set out as a note under section 7901 of this title.
§ 688.110 What are the purposes of the YouthBuild program? The overarching goal of the YouthBuild program is to provide disadvantaged and low-income youth the opportunity to obtain education and employment skills in local in-demand jobs to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Additionally, the YouthBuild program has as goals to: ( a ) Enable disadvantaged youth to obtain the education and employment skills necessary to achieve economic self-sufficiency through employment in in-demand occupations and pursuit of postsecondary education and training opportunities;
( b ) Provide disadvantaged youth with opportunities for meaningful work and service to their communities;
( c ) Foster the development of employment and leadership skills and commitment to community development among youth in low-income communities;
( d ) Expand the supply of permanent affordable housing for homeless individuals and families, homeless youth, and low-income families by utilizing the talents of disadvantaged youth. The program seeks to increase the number of affordable and transitional housing units available to decrease the rate of homelessness in communities with YouthBuild programs; and
( e ) Improve the quality and energy efficiency of community and other non-profit and public facilities, including those that are used to serve homeless and low-income families.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOHN HAYWARD

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 2609

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 24, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County

, Keith A. Carsten , Judge.

William R. Ponall, of Ponall Law , Maitland

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

John Hayward appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief

filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One,

Two, Three, Five, and the supplemental claim. However, because the record does not

conclusively r efute Hayward’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the

admission of collateral crimes evidence, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four2

and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or fo r

an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State

, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (" [A]

defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1)

the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the pris oner is entitled to

no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v.

State , 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)))

.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### Wendelin Brust et al., Appellants, v. Margaret Asselta, as Administrator of the Estate of Edward J. Asselta, Deceased, Respondent.

Appeal by the landlords from a final order and judgment (one paper) of the County Court of Putnam County dismissing their petition in nonpayment summary proceedings, and from two orders denying their motions to set aside the verdict of the jury. Final order and judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The defense was actual partial eviction in that an instrument executed September 10, 1946, by which the tenant purported to release two portions of the demised premises was obtained by fraud and without consideration. Both theories were submitted to the jury. The instrument of September 10, 1946, was valid even in the absence of consideration. (Real Property Law, § 279.) Since the theory of invalidity of the instrument on that ground was erroneously submitted to the jury, and there was merely a general verdict, the final order and judgment must be reversed as we have no way of determining upon which theory the case was decided. *(Hansen*v. *New York City Housing Authority,*271 App. Div. 986; *Tumbarello*v. *City of New York,*269 App. Div. 847.) Appeal from orders denying the appellants’ motion to set aside the verdict of the jury dismissed, without costs. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Cornerstone Fund III and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      42,206,365
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  304,691<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,767,039<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,767,039<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,676,578<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,109,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,566,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,566,981
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,566,981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $155,758 and receivable from
DWR pf $148,933.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $2,575,303 and net option premiums of $(319,320).
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $723,282, accrued management
fees of $147,710, accrued borkerage commissions of $140,147, common
administrative expenses payable of $156,871 and accrued transaction
fees and costs of $9,255.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $4,228,547, net
change in unrealized of $(5,500) and interest income of $453,531.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of
UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc. ("UCI"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
Report of UCI on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of UCI.
This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement
has been provided to UCI and will be retained by UCI and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

February 9, 2005             /s/ D.  Michael Stout, M.D.
                             --------------------------------------------
                             D.  Michael Stout, M.D.
                             President and Chief Executive Officer


                            /s/ Jerry F.  Wells, Jr., CPA
                            --------------------------------------------
                            Jerry F.  Wells, Jr., CPA
                           Executive Vice President,  Chief  Financial  Officer,
                           and Principal Accounting Officer
### §7621. Sense of Congress on public-private partnerships

#### (a) Findings

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Innovative partnerships between governments and organizations in the private sector (including foundations, universities, corporations, faith-based and community-based organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations) have proliferated in recent years, particularly in the area of health.

(2) Public-private sector partnerships multiply local and international capacities to strengthen the delivery of health services in developing countries and to accelerate research for vaccines and other pharmaceutical products that are essential to combat infectious diseases decimating the populations of these countries.

(3) These partnerships maximize the unique capabilities of each sector while combining financial and other resources, scientific knowledge, and expertise toward common goals which neither the public nor the private sector can achieve alone.

(4) Sustaining existing public-private partnerships and building new ones are critical to the success of the international community's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases around the globe.

#### (b) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the sustainment and promotion of public-private partnerships should be a priority element of the strategy pursued by the United States to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other global health crises; and

(2) the United States should systematically track the evolution of these partnerships and work with others in the public and private sector to profile and build upon those models that are most effective.

(Pub. L. 108–25, title II, §201, May 27, 2003, 117 Stat. 723.)
### §288j. International Development Law Institute

For purposes of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288 and following), the International Development Law Institute shall be considered to be a public international organization in which the United States participates under the authority of an Act of Congress authorizing such participation.

(Pub. L. 102–511, title VIII, §805, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3353.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The International Organizations Immunities Act, referred to in text, is title I of act Dec. 29, 1945, ch. 652, 59 Stat. 669, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 288 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992, also known as the FREEDOM Support Act, and not as part of the International Organizations Immunities Act which comprises this subchapter.
#### Betty Harlem, Respondent, v. Sam Harlem, Appellant.

Appeal from order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York (Family Court Division), County of Kings, made the 29th day of March, 1948, denying appellant’s application for a vacation or modification of an order of that court previously made on the 20th day of November, 1947, which order directed him to make certain payments for the support of his *“*wife ” and child. Order of March 29, 1948, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and on motion of appellant granted to the extent that the order of November 20, 1947, is vacated and the matter is remitted to the said Domestic Relations Court to hear and determine the amount to be paid by appellant for the support of the child. The respondent’s marriage to the appellant was void *ab initio*and forms no basis for a tlaim by respondent for support. Appeal from the so-called order, actually a memorandum decision, dated February 27, 1948, dismissed, without costs. Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.