alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 32,834

5 ADRIAN LUCERO, 

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

8 William C. Birdsall, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender

13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender

14 Santa Fe, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Defendant appeals from a conditional discharge order following his conditional

2 guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine, where he reserved the right to

3 challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. [RP 74, 80] Our notice

4 proposed to affirm and Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We remain

5 unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and therefore affirm. 

6 {2} Defendant continues to disagree with the district court’s ruling that the officer

7 had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant for driving a vehicle in an unsafe

8 condition, under NMSA 1978, § 66-3-801(A) (1991), based on a significant crack in

9 Defendant’s windshield. [DS 4; MIO 3; RP 60] As set forth in our notice, the officer

10 testified that he saw “amber light from the street light coming through the crack within

11 the driver’s immediate view,” which, the officer testified, “could impair [the driver’s]

12 ability to operate the vehicle safely, depending on if the driver was looking at the spot

13 or not.” [DS 3; MIO 5-6] We hold that this testimony supports a reasonable suspicion

14 that Defendant violated Section 66-3-801(A). See State v. Munoz, 1998-NMCA-140,

15 ¶ 11, 125 N.M. 765, 965 P.2d 349 (holding that windshield cracks that obscure the

16 driver’s vision are enough to constitute a safety hazard in violation of Section 66-3-

17 801). While Defendant does not believe the crack presented a safety hazard [MIO 5-

18 7], whether the crack in the windshield made the vehicle unsafe to drive is a question

19 for the finder of fact, not an appellate court. See id., 1998-NMCA-140, ¶ 14 (making
3

1 it clear that whether the officer’s “observation of the . . . windshield provided

2 reasonable grounds to believe that the crack in the windshield made the vehicle unsafe

3 to drive . . . is a question for the finder of fact, not an appellate court”). We

4 accordingly affirm. 

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

6 

7 _______________________________________

8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

9 WE CONCUR:

10 

11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

12 

13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 157

 155

 145

 143

 146

 150

 149

 148

 150

 151

 154

 159

 162

 161

 171

 155

 149

 152

 156

 159

 160

 163

 164

 160

 189

 172

 157

 162

 138

 123

 146

 138

 133

 135

 137

 138

 136

 138

 141

 140

 145

 145

 146

 150

 156

 139

 140

 143

 138

 146

 150

 153

 134

 151

 152

 143

 140

 130

 116

 114

 154

 146

 139

 138

 141

 142

 141

 142

 145

 146

 151

 154

 152

 157

 162

 150

 146

 148

 149

 152

 155

 158

 155

 157

 164

 152

 148

 143

 129

 119

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
|   | (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 Seattle      Bank. |

|   | Federal Home Loan Bank of      Seattle |                                             |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |                                             |   |
|   | By:                                    | /s/ Richard      M. Riccobono               |   |
|   |                                   | Richard      M. Riccobono                        |   |
|   |                                   | President      and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|   |                                   |                                             |   |
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 Apple REIT Seven, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of December 31, 2006, and for the period then ended.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Glade M. Knight                    
|Glade M. Knight Chief Executive
Officer
|                                       
|/s/ Bryan Peery                        
|Bryan Peery Chief Financial
Officer    

March 7, 2007
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Willie J. Hunter, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 12015;

Fourth District —

September 10, 1973.

*971John F. McNichols,, Deputy Defender, of Springfield, (J. Daniel Stewart, Assistant Defender, of counsel,) for appellant.

James R. Burgess, Jr., State’s Attorney, of Urbana, (Thomas L. Knight, Assistant State’s Attorney, and John W. Howard, Senior Law Student, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE SIMKINS

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant-appellant Willie J. Hunter was indicted for the crime of armed robbery; the case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty. Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 6 to 15 years.

Defendant contends that his sentence should be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing “* # * because the trial court had an

inadequate informational basis to sentence the defendant” or, alternatively, the sentence should be reduced, primarily because of the disparity in the sentence with that imposed upon defendant’s accomplice who received a 5 to 15 year sentence.

 We affirm. Defendant cites *People v. Bradford,*1 Ill.App.3d 38, 272 N.E.2d 259, for the proposition that the trial judge is under an affirmative duty to procure sufficient information upon which to predicate his sentencing responsibility. Bradford, however, dealt with a plea of guilty, and, as we there observed, “” * * the trial judge, at the time of imposing sentence, had before him the plea of guilty and the recitation contained in the indictment together with the recommendation of the Assistant State’s Attorney.” Here, the case was tried before a jury, the defendant testified in his own behalf, and the complete details of the offense and defendant’s participation in the crime were within the knowledge of the trial judge. This record does not entail the “factual vacuum” involved in *Bradford.*It discloses that the trial judge was possessed of sufficient information upon which to form an intelligent, rational judgment in imposing sentence.

 As to the disparity in the sentences imposed, defendant cites *People v.*Steg, 69 Ill.App.2d 188, 215 N.E.2d 854, and *People v. Freeman,*49 Ill.App.2d 464, 200 N.E.2d 146. These cases are readily distinguishable. In *Freeman,*defendant’s accomplices received sentences *972of 1 to 3 years while Freeman was sentenced 10 to 20 years. The court stated, “We believe that the sentence should be reduced since the boys originally sentenced with defendant for the robberies received *substantially smaller*sentences.” (Emphasis added.) (49 Ill.App.2d 464, 468.) This language was quoted with approval in the *Steg*case where the sentences involved were 2 to 10 years and 5 to 20 years. The only difference between the defendant’s sentence here, and that imposed on his accomplice is one year on the minimum term. The accomplice did not receive a “substantially smaller” sentence within the holdings in *Freeman*and *Steg.*

Judgment affirmed.

CRAVEN, P. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 17

– 1539

Mahaska County No. CVEQ087132

ORDER

IN RE THE DETENTION OF THOMAS G. RUTHERS JR.

THOMAS G. RUTHERS JR.,

Respondent

- Appellant.

The court, McDonald, J., taking no part, being evenly divided, declares this case

affirmed by operation of law. See Iowa Code § 602.4107 (2017).

Waterman, Mansfield, and Christensen, JJ., would affirm the judgment of the

district court; Cady, C.J., and Wiggins and Appel, JJ., would reverse the judgment of the

district court. See State v. Effler , 769 N.W.2d 880, 884 (Iowa 2009) (“[W]hen the

supreme court is equally divided on an issue upon which the district court and court of

appeals differ, the decisi on of the district court is affirmed by operation of law.”).

Copies to:

Michael H. Adams

Spd

- Special Defense Unit

401 East Court Avenue, Suite 150

Des Moines, IA 50319

Tyler Buller

Assistant Attorney General

Hoover Building, 2nd Floor

Des Moines, IA 50319
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1233 Exclusion of certain underpayments from resources. ( a ) *General.* In determining the resources of an eligible individual (and spouse, if any), we will exclude, for 9 months following the month of receipt, the unspent portion of any title II or title XVI retroactive payment received on or after March 2, 2004. *Exception:* We will exclude for 6 months following the month of receipt the unspent portion of any title II or title XVI retroactive payment received before March 2, 2004. This exclusion also applies to such payments received by any other person whose resources are subject to deeming under this subpart.
( b ) *Retroactive payments.* For purposes of this exclusion, a retroactive payment is one that is paid after the month in which it was due. A title XVI retroactive payment includes any retroactive amount of federally administered State supplementation.
( c ) *Limitation on exclusion.* This exclusion applies only to any unspent portion of retroactive payments made under title II or XVI. Once the money from the retroactive payment is spent, this exclusion does not apply to items purchased with the money, even if the 6-month or 9-month period, whichever is applicable (see paragraph (a) of this section), has not expired. However, other exclusions may be applicable. As long as the funds from the retroactive payment are not spent, they are excluded for the full 6-month or 9-month period, whichever is applicable.
( d ) *Funds must be identifiable.* Unspent money from a retroactive payment must be identifiable from other resources for this exclusion to apply. The money may be commingled with other funds but, if this is done in such a fashion that the retroactive amount can no longer be separately identified, that amount will count toward the resource limit described in § 416.1205.
( e ) *Written notice.* We will give each recipient a written notice of the exclusion limitation when we make the retroactive payment.
[51 FR 34464, Sept. 29, 1986, as amended at 54 FR 19164, May 4, 1989; 70 FR 41138, July 18, 2005]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM MEDEI,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2242

[March 11, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; John J. Murphy, III, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-005151-

CF-10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven 

Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUse of an Atmospheric Atomic Oxygen Beam for Restoration of Defaced PaintingsAn atmospheric atomic oxygen beam has been found to be effective in removing organic materials through oxidation that are typical of graffiti or other contaminant defacements which may occur to the surfaces of paintings. The technique, developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is portable and was successfully used at the Carnegie Museum of Art to remove a lipstick smudge from the surface of porous paint on the Andy Warhol painting "Bathtub." This process was also evaluated for suitability to remove felt tip and ball point ink graffiti from paper, gesso on canvas and cotton canvas.Document ID19990078739Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsBanks, Bruce A.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Rutledge, Sharon K.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Karla, Margaret*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Brook Park, OH United States)*Norris, Mary Jo*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Brook Park, OH United States)*Real, William A.*(Carnegie Museum of Art Pittsburgh, PA United States)*Haytas, Christy A.*(Cleveland State Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1999Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-1999-209441NAS 1.15:209441E-11920Meeting InformationMeeting: ConservationLocation: LyonCountry: FranceStart Date: August 29, 1999End Date: September 4, 1999Sponsors:International Council of MuseumsFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-1A-1EDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990078739.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
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

 710.95

 711.17

 711.40

 711.54

 711.71

 711.87

 712.19

 714.64

 717.11

 717.64

 717.92

 718.13

 718.32

 719.50

 720.44

 721.63

 722.26

 722.62

 722.91

 723.15

 723.25

 723.10

 722.97

 722.80

 722.62

 722.18

 721.51

 720.83

 720.47

 720.17

 890

 896

 903

 907

 912

 917

 927

 1,003

 1,085

 1,103

 1,112

 1,120

 1,126

 1,168

 1,202

 1,245

 1,269

 1,282

 1,293

 1,302

 1,306

 1,300

 1,295

 1,289

 1,282

 1,266

 1,241

 1,216

 1,203

 1,192

STORAGE

+4

+6

+7

+4

+5

+5

+10

+76

+82

+18

+9

+8

+6

+42

+34

+43

+24

+13

+11

+9

+4

-6

-5

-6

-7

-16

-25

-25

-13

-11

CHANGE

2

3

4

2

3

3

5

38

41

9

5

4

3

21

17

22

12

7

6

5

4

2

2

2

1

-8

2

-13

8

-6

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

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 2

 5

 5

 5

 5

 0

 15

 0

 15

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2003 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 19, 2003

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +306 206 0 52

ACRE-FEET +306 409 0 103

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 103

 103

 886

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

Table 7
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

 205

 202

 200

 199

 203

 204

 196

 192

 196

 196

 197

 202

 205

 211

 216

 218

 211

 206

 205

 200

 196

 198

 198

 197

 200

 200

 206

 211

 211

 216

 219

 158

 155

 155

 157

 159

 157

 156

 157

 157

 157

 158

 163

 169

 169

 169

 163

 160

 159

 159

 156

 156

 153

 151

 149

 153

 158

 156

 156

 156

 160

 159

 175

 176

 179

 178

 181

 168

 174

 174

 175

 176

 177

 182

 187

 186

 189

 185

 179

 179

 174

 172

 177

 171

 172

 167

 167

 178

 177

 179

 180

 186

 190

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 1, 2021

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13(a)-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, James K. B. Hesketh, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Canyon Resources Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and,     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ James K. B. Hesketh James K. B. Hesketh, Chief Executive Officer Date: November 13, 2006 
1
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

 130.50

 130.78

 130.99

 130.78

 130.73

 130.47

 130.49

 130.60

 130.69

 130.66

 130.73

 130.81

 130.89

 130.83

 130.81

 130.90

 130.81

 130.73

 130.93

 130.90

 130.86

 130.86

 130.92

 130.78

 130.69

 131.05

 130.82

 130.79

 130.78

 130.77

 130.67

 633

 665

 689

 665

 659

 630

 632

 644

 655

 651

 659

 668

 677

 670

 668

 678

 668

 659

 682

 678

 674

 674

 680

 665

 655

 696

 669

 666

 665

 664

 652

STORAGE

-6

+32

+24

-24

-6

-29

+2

+12

+11

-4

+8

+9

+9

-7

-2

+10

-10

-9

+23

-4

-4

+0

+6

-15

-10

+41

-27

-3

-1

-1

-12

CHANGE

587

601

587

570

542

506

534

542

571

575

584

576

567

517

479

469

469

514

531

503

487

468

466

452

458

463

417

424

425

445

477

INFLOW

 39

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

PUTAH

 550

 550

 540

 547

 510

 486

 498

 501

 529

 542

 545

 536

 527

 486

 445

 429

 439

 484

 484

 470

 454

 433

 428

 425

 428

 407

 395

 390

 390

 411

 448

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .30

 .29

 .29

 .31

 .35

 .36

 .31

 .34

 .44

 .33

 .37

 .30

 .40

 .34

 .34

 .28

 .30

 .37

 .38

 .28

 .35

 .40

 .28

 .24

 .29

 .37

 .44

 .43

 .44

 .33

 .31

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-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2004 RUN DATE: 09/30/2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +13 15,806 14,707 1,059 35 10.56 .00

ACRE-FEET +13 31,351 29,171 2,101 69

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 2,101

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 29,171

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2004 .00

 639

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK