alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6103. Separation of Government personnel during fellowships

#### (a) Separation

Under such terms and conditions as the agency head may direct, any agency of the United States Government may separate from Government service for a specified period any officer or employee of that agency who accepts a fellowship under the program established by this chapter and is not detailed under section 6104 of this title.

#### (b) Reemployment

Any fellow who is not a detailee, at the end of the fellowship, is entitled to be reemployed in the same manner as if covered by section 3582 of title 5.

#### (c) Rights and benefits

Notwithstanding section 8347(o), 8713, or 8914 of title 5 and in accordance with regulations of the Office of Personnel Management, an employee, while serving as a fellow who is not a detailee, is entitled to the same rights and benefits as if covered by section 3582 of title 5. The Center shall reimburse the employing agency for any costs incurred under section 3582 of title 5.

#### (d) Compliance with Budget Act

Funds are available under this section to the extent and in the amounts provided in appropriation Acts.

(Pub. L. 103–236, title II, §254, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 430.)
### §1300b–5. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–467, §6, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 781, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchapter, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
[No. 8196.

Department One.

December 16, 1909.]

#### Luella Wingard, *Respondent,*v. Charles Leo Wingard, *Appellant.**1*

Divorce — Custody of Children — Welfare of Child. An order awarding tbe custody of a daughter fourteen years of age to the mother, upon a divorce, will not be disturbed when' in harmony with the welfare of the child.

Appeal from an order of the superior court for Walla Walla county, Brents, J., entered March 17, 1909, denying a motion to vacate an order awarding the custody of a minor to her mother.

Affirmed.

*Cain & Hurspool,*for appellant.

*H. S. Blandford,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 105 Pac. 833.

Gose, J.

This suit is waged between divorced parents, over the custody of their daughter, of the age of fourteen years. The trial court, after according a full hearing to the respective parties, awarded the custody to the mother. The father has appealed.

An attentive consideration of the evidence has convinced *355us that the judgment is in harmony with the welfare of the child. This is the controlling consideration in questions of this character. The daughter has reached an age when she should not be deprived of the society, influence, and guidance of her mother unless reasons of the gravest character demand it. Such reasons do not now exist. Neither a review of the evidence nor a statement of its general tenor would serve any useful purpose. Our conclusion is, upon all the facts, that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Rudkin, C. J., Fullekton, Chadwick, and Moxkis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 23, 2009, in InferX Inc.’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year-ended December 31, 2008 and
December 31, 2007, related to the consolidated financial statements of InferX
Inc. as of December 31, 2008, and for the year then ended, which appear in
InferX Inc.’s 2008 Form 10-K filed on or about April 15, 2009.





/s/ KBL,
LLP


New York,
NY


April 15,
2009
12/2/2021

Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data Preliminary Data - Subject to change

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss Pumping

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily Total Daily Total

Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In CFS In Acre Feet

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Loss (4.33) Loss (4.33) Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 801 801 0 1,589 1,589

2-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 800 800 0 1,587 1,587

3-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 799 799 0 1,584 1,584

4-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 189 798 987 374 1,583 1,957

5-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 92 801 892 182 1,588 1,770

6-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 138 798 936 273 1,583 1,856

7-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 282 804 1,086 560 1,594 2,154

8-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 184 800 984 364 1,587 1,951

9-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 184 799 983 364 1,585 1,949

10-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 625 413 1,039 1,240 820 2,060

11-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 750 0 750 1,488 0 1,488

12-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 750 0 750 1,488 0 1,488

13-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 750 0 750 1,488 0 1,488

14-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 750 0 750 1,488 0 1,488

15-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 750 0 750 1,488 0 1,488

16-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 749 0 749 1,485 0 1,485

17-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 487 487 0 965 965

18-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 536 536 0 1,063 1,063

19-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 801 801 0 1,588 1,588

20-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 806 806 0 1,599 1,599

21-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 808 808 0 1,602 1,602

22-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 808 808 0 1,603 1,603

23-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 809 809 0 1,605 1,605

24-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 809 809 0 1,604 1,604

25-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 809 809 0 1,604 1,604

26-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 810 810 0 1,606 1,606

27-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 811 811 0 1,608 1,608

28-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 810 810 0 1,607 1,607

29-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 806 806 0 1,599 1,599

30-Jun-21 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 0 805 805 0 1,596 1,596

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 90 6,192 18,326 24,518 12,282 36,349 48,631

CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

JUNE 2021

DATE

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
45-Day Commenters

1. Clayton Houchin, Buttonwillow Warehouse Company

2. Steven E. Alexander, Helena Chemical Company

3. Peter J. Butehuas, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

4. Anthony Gurlo, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

5. Steve Dugo, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

6. Eric Vangroningen, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

7. Andrea Machado, Mid Valley Agricultural Service

8. Scott Hushbeck, Wilbur-Ellis Company

9. Mike Strmiska, Mike Strmiska Consulting

10. Joe Bavaro, Bavaro Farming Company Inc.

11. Greg Musson, Gar Tootelian

12. Bradley Schrenk, Crop Advisor/PCA/CCA

13. Roger A. Isom, Western Agricultural Processors Association

14. Brad Hanson, University of California, Davis

15. Dennis A. Balint, California Walnut Board

16. Robert K. Curtis, California Almond Board

17. James Wells, Environmental Solutions Group

18. Christopher Valadez, California Grape & Tree Fruit League

19. Bob Blakely, California Citrus Mutual

20. Brian L. Bret, DowAgro Sciences

21. Debbie Stubbs, Syngenta

22. Afiqur Khan, Western Plant Health Association

23. Tricia Stever Blattler, Tulare County Farm Bureau

24. Richard Matoian, American Pistachio Growers

25. Nancy Levin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

26. Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Margaret Reeves, Pesticide Action Network North America

Sarah Sharpe, Fresno Metro Ministry

Caroline Cox, Center for Environmental Health

Deby DeWeese, Sisquoc Residents Concerned About Pesticides

Liz Figueroa, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte

Gail Bateson, Worksafe, Inc.

Jose T. Bravo, Just Transition Alliance

Irma Medellin, El Quinto Sol de America

Tracey Brieger and Sara Aird, California for Pesticide Reform

Teresa DeAnda, El Comite para el Bienestar de Earlimart

Mitzi Shpak, Action Now

27. Nick Condos, California Department of Food and Agriculture

28. Kurt Hembree, University of California Cooperative Extension Fresno County
#### § 726.111 Notice of authorization to self-insure.

Upon receipt of a completed agreement and undertaking and satisfactory proof that adequate security has been provided, an applicant for authorization to self-insure shall be notified by the Office in writing that he is authorized to self-insure to meet the obligations imposed upon him by section 415 and part C of title IV of the Act.
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Detail

# U.S. Trends in Food Availability and a Dietary Assessment of Loss-Adjusted Food Availability, 1970-2014

Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-166) 38 pp, January 2017

by Jeanine  Bentley

This report examines the amount of food available for consumption and related food trends in the United States from 1970 to 2014 using the food availability data in ERS’s Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. It also estimates whether Americans, on average, are meeting the dietary recommendations in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Errata: On February 17, ERS made corrections to three column heading labels in table 8, pages 22-23. In the first section of the table, on page 22, the first column heading under the column “Change, 1970 to 2014” was changed from “Pounds per year” to “Gallons per year.” In the last row of column headings on page 23 (labeling the “Total milk and milk products” row), the first column heading “Pounds per person” was changed to “Pounds per person per year” and, next to that, the second column heading “Pounds” was changed to “Pounds per year.”

**Keywords:** Added fats and oils, added sugars and sweeteners, dairy, 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, dietary recommendations, eggs, food availability, food consumption, fruit, meat, USDA Food Guidance System (MyPlate), nutrients, grains, nuts, vegetables, protein foods, legumes

**In this publication...**

-  Entire Report 
-  Report summary 
-  Download Zip file for EIB-166 

-  Diet Quality & Nutrition 
-  Food Consumption & Demand 

-  Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System 
-  Food Consumption and Nutrient Intakes 

**Last updated:** Friday, January 27, 2017

**For more information contact:**Jeanine  Bentley
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                        3,155,060
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                   739,895
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              3,894,955
<PP&E>                       34,370,218
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               50,191,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,968,226
<BONDS>                      56,782,946
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                  (24,121,453)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 50,191,879
<SALES>                       4,531,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,648,451
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,046,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,023,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            2,922,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (1,343,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (606,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                   (606,487)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (1.45)



</TABLE>
#### STATE, Appellant, v. HILTON, Defendant, (REIERSONS, Inc., Intervener, Respondent).

(240 N. W. 494.)

(File No. 7259.

Opinion filed February 5, 1932.)

*M. Q. Sharpe,*Attorney General, *Frank W. Mitchell,*Assistant Attorney General, and *I. W. Jackson,*State’s Attorney, of Kennebec, for the State.

*E. E. Wagner*and *Florence Ryan Foss,*both of Mitchell, and *A. C. Miller,*of Kennebec, for Respondent.

*460PER 'CURIAM.

Defendant, Hilton, pleaded guilty in the court below to a charge of transporting liquor. Intervener, the owner of the truck wherein Hilton had transported the liquor, appeared to show cause against the forfeiture of the truck. The state filed an answer to the complaint in intervention, and, after hearing upon the issues so joined, the court made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment for the forfeiture and sale of the truck in question.

Thereafter intervener moved for new trial, and', after consideration, the trial court vacated the forfeiture judgment and granted a new trial of said issues “upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision of the court.” From this order granting new trial, the state has appealed.

The law applicable -to the situation, when the owner of a motor vehicle .seeks to show cause against its forfeiture because of the use of such vehicle by another in transportation of liquor, was considered with some care by this court in State v. Severson, 55 S. D. 1, 224 N. W. 179, 182, where our decision was summarized as follows: “The learned trial judge has found 'by his order that the intervener has shown good cause why the automobile in question should not be forfeited and sold. A¥e believe it is the law upon the authorities hereinbefore cited that ‘good entuse’ depends to a great extent upon the particular circumstances of each individual case; that the burden of proof is upon the intervener to show good cause; and that the trial judge is¡ vested with a considerable amount of discretion in determining whether good cause is shown.”

Upon the record in the instant case, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in its application of the law or its interpretation of the facts when it decided, in granting the respondent’s motion for new trial, that tire evidence was insufficient to- sustain the judgment of forfeiture previously rendered.

No abuse of discretion appears (Finch v. Martin, 13 S. D. 274, 83 N. W. 263), and the order appealed from is affirmed.

All the Judges concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

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

###### Editorial Note on Subpart M of Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart M of part 655 appear at 75 FR 10403, Mar. 5, 2010.

#### § 655.1225 What are the rules of practice before an ALJ?

(a) Except as specifically provided in this subpart, and to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of this subpart, the “Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges” established by the Secretary at 29 CFR part 18 shall apply to administrative proceedings under this subpart.

(b) As provided in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556, any oral or documentary evidence may be received in proceedings under this part. The Federal Rules of Evidence and subpart B of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (29 CFR part 18, subpart B) do not apply, but principles designed to ensure production of relevant and probative evidence shall guide the admission of evidence. The administrative law judge may exclude evidence which is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitive.
### Geohydrologic significance of lithofacies of the Cockfield Formation of Louisiana and Mississippi and of the Yegua Formation of Texas

By: J.N. Payne

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp569B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **1**                            (11165 pdf)                        
  - **1**                            (13106 pdf)                        
  - **1**                            (10928 pdf)                        
  - **1**                            (12266 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 1**                            (268 pdf)                        
  - **2**                            (9831 pdf)                        
  - **2**                            (11972 pdf)                        
  - **2**                            (11206 pdf)                        
  - **2**                            (11630 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 5**                            (10753 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 6**                            (10852 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 8**                            (822 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Ivey WALKER, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 05-7796.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 2006.

Decided: Feb. 22, 2006.

*550Ivey Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, David Alan Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing two of the claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and ordering the Government to respond to his remaining claims. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Walker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Given this disposition, we deny his pending motion for a certificate of appealability. 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*
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. I (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Paul T. Mannion Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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






By:
              /s/ Paul
                T.
                Mannion Jr.Paul T. Mannion Jr.Principal
                  Executive Officer
                March
                  30, 2006
##### 



(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Imre EszenyiName:
    Imre EszenyiTitle:
    Acting President and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer) /s/ Paul BiberkrautName:
    Paul BiberkrautTitle:
    Chief Financial and
Administrative
Officer (Principal Financial Officer
and Principal Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1172

DARRYL ALLMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; EDWARD J. PROKOP, Chief Deputy; JOHN KAPETANIS, Sergeant; GEORGE GRAY, Deputy; DARREN HINZMAN, Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-309-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Allmond, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Kearney Saba, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Darryl Allmond appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeAllmond v. Alexandria Sheriff’s Dep’t , No. CA-02-309-A (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 22, 2003 & entered Jan. 23, 2003; Jan. 29, 2003). 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
§ 669.350 How are core services delivered to MSFW's? ( a ) The full range of core services are available to MSFW's, as well as other individuals, at One-Stop Centers, as described in 20 CFR part 662.
( b ) Core services must be made available through the One-Stop delivery system. The delivery of core services to MSFW's, by the NFJP grantee and through the One-Stop system, must be discussed in the required MOU between the Local Board and the NFJP grantee.
### §9624. Termination

#### (a) In general

The authorities provided under this subchapter terminate on the date that is 7 years after October 5, 2018.

#### (b) Termination of Corporation

The Corporation shall terminate on the date on which the portfolio of the Corporation is liquidated.

(Pub. L. 115–254, div. F, title II, §1424, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3499.)