alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40994 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ALLAN ROBERTO RIVERA-GARCIA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1081-ALL
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Allan Roberto Rivera-Garcia was convicted ofviolating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission, following removal. He appeals the sentence imposed in his case following this court’s remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Rivera-Garcia challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-40994

2 elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). A panel of this court rejected Rivera-Garcia’s Apprendi -based argument in his initial appeal. U nited Statesv. Rivera-Garcia, 167 F. App’x 989, 989-90 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). This court’s previous decision stands as the law of the case. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Rivera-Garcia alsocontends that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law because it was imposed pursuant to a de facto mandatory sentencing scheme. He argues that post-Booker rulings issued by this court have effectively reinstated the mandatory sentencing system found unconstitutional in Booker. This court must follow its precedent addressing post-Booker sentencing unless
an intervening en banc or Supreme Court decision renders the decisions inapplicable. See In re Brown, 457 F.3d 392, 395 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). RiveraGarcia has cited no such decision. Rivera-Garcia’s sentence, which falls within his properly calculated sentencing guideline range, is presumed reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-66 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Giving “great deference” to that sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a f air sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude that Rivera-Garcia has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007). AFFIRMED.
#### § 702.236 Penalty for failure to report termination of payments.

Any employer failing to notify the district director that the final payment of compensation has been made as required by § 702.235 shall be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $356 for any violation for which penalties are assessed after January 15, 2024. The district director has the authority and responsibility for assessing a civil penalty under this section.

[81 FR 43449, July 1, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 5380, Jan. 18, 2017; 83 FR 11, Jan. 2, 2018; 84 FR 217, Jan. 23, 2019; 85 FR 2296, Jan. 15, 2020; 86 FR 2967, Jan. 14, 2021; 87 FR 2333, Jan. 14, 2022; 88 FR 2215, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 1814, Jan. 11, 2024]
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

July-08

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG. Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Pumpin

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

DATE 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 Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,809 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,854 624 2,053 2,557 4,610 2-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,809 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,854 624 2,029 2,874 4,903 3-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,809 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,854 624 3,010 2,841 5,852 4-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,809 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,854 624 3,011 2,856 5,867 5-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,809 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,854 624 3,021 2,870 5,891 6-Jul-08 2400 2 4 2,811 949 1 3 0 0 1 3 1,855 626 3,022 2,770 5,792 7-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,811 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,855 626 3,051 2,900 5,951 8-Jul-08 3000 3 0 2,814 949 2 0 0 0 2 0 1,857 626 3,093 3,221 6,314 9-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,251 3,683 5,934 

10-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,263 3,656 5,918 11-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,158 3,726 5,885 12-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,575 3,661 6,236 13-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,482 3,690 6,172 14-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,406 3,748 6,154 15-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,418 3,782 6,200 16-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,681 3,786 6,467 17-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,559 3,772 6,330 

18-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,957 3,797 5,754 19-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,642 3,787 5,428 20-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,022 3,803 5,825 21-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 2,129 3,804 5,933 22-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,890 3,780 5,670 23-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,826 3,787 5,612 24-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,430 3,596 5,026 25-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,436 3,443 4,879 26-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,402 3,423 4,825 27-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,478 3,470 4,948 28-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,426 3,588 5,013 29-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,624 3,694 5,318 30-Jul-08 0000 0 0 2,814 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 626 1,630 3,701 5,330 31-Jul-08 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 1,617 3,701 5,318 

Total 5 4 0 0 5 4 2,814 949 3 3 0 0 3 3 1,857 626 67,592 107,766 175,357 1

Banks Tracy Combined B
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental Study of Load Carrying Capacity of Point Contacts at Zero Entrainment VelocityA capacitance technique was used to monitor the film thickness separating two steel balls while subjecting the ball-ball contact to highly stressed, zero entrainment velocity conditions. Tests were performed in a nitrogen atmosphere and utilized 52100 steel balls and a polyalphaolefin lubricant. Capacitance to film thickness accuracy was verified under pure rolling conditions using established EHL theory. Zero entrainment velocity tests were performed at sliding speeds from 6.0 to 10.0 m/s and for sustained amounts of time to 28.8 min. The protective lubricant film separating the specimens at zero entrainment velocity had a film thickness between 0.10 to 0.14 microns (4 to 6 micro in.), which corresponded to a k value of 4. The formation of an immobile surface film formed by lubricant entrapment is discussed as an explanation of the load carrying capacity at zero entrainment velocity conditions, relevant to the ball-ball contacts occurring in retainerless ball bearings.Document ID19980237013Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsShogin, B. A.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Jones, W. R., Jr.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Kingsbury, E. P.*(IRC, Inc. Walpole, MA United States)*Jansen, M. J.*(AYT Corp. Brook Park, OH United States)*Prahl, J. M.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1998Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberE-11369NASA/TM-1998-208650NAS 1.15:208650Meeting InformationMeeting: AUSTRIB ''98Location: BrisbaneCountry: AustraliaStart Date: December 6, 1998End Date: December 9, 1998Sponsors:Institution of EngineersFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 274-00-00CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC3-409Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980237013.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
§ 10010.13 Scoping. ( a ) The invitation requirement in 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(1) may be satisfied by including such an invitation in the NOI.
( b ) If a scoping meeting is held, consensus is desirable; however, the lead agency is ultimately responsible for the scope of an EIS. In the case of procedures involving joint-lead agencies, all joint-lead agencies share this responsibility.
§ 679.160 Under what circumstances may the State Workforce Development Board hire staff? ( a ) The State WDB may hire a director and other staff to assist in carrying out the functions described in WIOA sec. 101(d) and § 679.130 using funds described in WIOA sec. 129(b)(3) or sec. 134(a)(3)(B)(i).
( b ) The State WDB must establish and apply a set of objective qualifications for the position of director that ensures the individual selected has the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet identified benchmarks and to assist in effectively carrying out the functions of the State WDB.
( c ) The director and staff must be subject to the limitations on the payment of salary and bonuses described in WIOA sec. 194(15).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Stames, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
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

 80

 81

 82

 87

 187

 192

 193

 188

 181

 207

 181

 183

 184

 177

 176

 175

 176

 177

 177

 176

 171

 163

 156

 157

 0

 0

 0

 139

 147

 136

 65

 56

 57

 72

 68

 185

 178

 176

 172

 172

 172

 175

 175

 169

 168

 172

 171

 171

 172

 165

 157

 152

 147

 148

 0

 0

 0

 137

 133

 131

 75

 77

 78

 81

 140

 188

 184

 180

 177

 177

 176

 178

 180

 174

 172

 173

 173

 175

 174

 171

 165

 157

 152

 150

 0

 0

 0

 138

 137

 134

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 23, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
Rule 13a -14(a)/15d -14(a) Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of
LNB Bancorp, Inc.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 12, 2011
    /s/ Gary J. ElekGary J. ElekChief Financial Officer 50
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

 178

 171

 160

 162

 161

 152

 147

 144

 147

 152

 148

 134

 140

 137

 136

 131

 126

 122

 206

 209

 209

 220

 209

 212

 208

 209

 205

 207

 197

 187

 180

 110

 102

 101

 93

 92

 98

 90

 95

 92

 94

 90

 89

 92

 94

 86

 88

 87

 81

 100

 143

 152

 142

 166

 145

 141

 141

 145

 141

 100

 128

 150

 148

 141

 135

 138

 139

 130

 121

 124

 129

 132

 124

 119

 120

 116

 116

 114

 113

 108

 145

 187

 197

 194

 192

 191

 189

 188

 189

 183

 158

 158

 166

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 16, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### §283q. Articles of agreement; authorization to agree to amendments

The United States Governor of the Bank is authorized to agree to amendments to the provisions of the articles of agreement as provided in proposed Board of Governors resolutions entitled (a) "Amendment of the Provisions of the Agreement Establishing the Bank with Respect to Membership and to Related Matters" and (b) "Amendment of the Provisions of the Agreement Establishing the Bank with Respect to the Election of Executive Directors".

(Pub. L. 86–147, §20, as added Pub. L. 92–246, §1, Mar. 10, 1972, 86 Stat. 59.)
N E W S R E L E A S E

                  APHTON ANNOUNCES RECEIPT OF GROSS PROCEEDS OF
                      $17 MILLION FOR SALE OF COMMON STOCK

                                February 7, 2002

Miami, FL - Aphton Corporation (Nasdaq: APHT) announced today that the Company
received the funds and sold 1,345,000 shares of registered common stock at
$12.70 per share for gross proceeds of $17,081,500.

The proceeds of the financing will be used for general corporate purposes,
including to fund Aphton's on-going clinical trials and operations.

A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with and
declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This press release
shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy,
nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state in which such
offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful, prior to registration or
qualification under the securities laws of any such state.

Aphton Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company in one Phase III and three
Phase II clinical trials developing products using its innovative vaccine-like
technology for neutralizing hormones that participate in gastrointestinal system
and reproductive system cancer and non-cancer diseases; and for the prevention
of pregnancy. Aphton has several strategic alliances including strategic
alliances with Aventis Pasteur (NYSE:AVE) and GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK).

Except for the historical information herein, the matters discussed herein are
forward-looking statements that involve a number or risks and uncertainties and
are not a guarantee of future performance. Future results may vary significantly
based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, intellectual
property risks, risks in regulatory and market acceptance of new products and
continuing demand for same, the impact of competitive products and pricing,
changing economic conditions and other risk factors that are inherent in the
drug development process and the company's business including those set forth in
Aphton's most recent 10-K and other filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. It is not possible to predict or identify all such risk factors that
could cause actual results to differ from expected or historical results. The
company's actual results could differ from these forward-looking statements and
the company undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking
statement, except as may be required under applicable securities law.

 Contact: Aphton Corporation; Investor Relations, J.L. Whitmore, 305-374-7338.
#### § 13.1 Authority and purpose.

The Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act of June 20, 1936, as amended by section 4 of the Act of August 3, 1954 (68 Stat. 663; 20 U.S.C. 107), directs that, insofar as practicable, preference shall be given to blind persons in the operation of vending stands and machines on any Federal property. The regulations in this part prescribe the policies and procedures to achieve and protect that preference on property, including land, owned or leased by the United States and controlled by the Department of the Interior.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7926

In Re: JACKIE MCKUBBIN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-95-05)

Submitted: July 26, 2006 Decided: August 4, 2006

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie McKubbin, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jackie McKubbin petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging

the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for

reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000).

He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to

act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district

court has recently denied McKubbin’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided

McKubbin’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED
[No. 8338.

Department Two.

December 24, 1909.]

#### Mary Smith, *Respondent,*v. W. L. Smith, *Appellant.**1*

Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. Error in the admission of evidence in a divorce case'is harmless, where the findings are sustained by competent evidence.

Costs — On Appeal — Divorce—Attorney’s Pees. Upon affirming a decree of divorce in favor of a wife, the attorney’s fees on appeal will be confined to the statutory costs.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Huneke, J., entered May 26, 1909, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for a divorce.

Affirmed.

*W. M. Nevims*and *Merritt, Oswald & Merritt,*for appellant.

*Robertson, Miller*& *Rosenhaupt,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 105 Pac. 1030.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree in a divorce proceeding. The case involves, with one exception, pure questions of fact. The statement of facts consists of between six and seven hundred pages of portrayal of domestic infelicity, which it would be neither edifying nor instructive to set forth in detail, or at all. But an examination of all the testimony in the case convinces us that the judgment of the court was justified in respect to all of the contested questions, viz., the granting of the decree, the disposition of the children, and the division of the property. In relation to the *462exception above mentioned, the appellant assigns as error the action of the court in refusing to sustain objections to •certain testimony which, it is claimed, was not justifiable under the issues raised by the pleadings.

But in addition to the fact that the record discloses that the alleged obnoxious testimony was not objected to until the testimony was substantially received, this case is tried here *de novo,*and excluding all illegal testimony, we think there is quite sufficient left to sustain the judgment. It will therefore be affirmed. The motion of appellant for costs for attorney’s fees in this court, over and above the statutory fees, will be denied.
#### Town of North Hempstead, Respondent, v. Benjamin Stern, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Carr, J., not voting.
### §1263. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–254, §3, Mar. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 65, which authorized each tribal governing body to use the balance of its tribe's share of the judgment funds for any purposes approved by the Secretary of the Interior, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
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

 838.36

 838.34

 838.28

 838.26

 838.24

 838.19

 838.15

 837.70

 837.18

 836.68

 836.17

 835.66

 835.15

 834.62

 834.10

 833.57

 833.04

 832.49

 831.96

 831.40

 830.86

 830.32

 829.75

 829.21

 828.64

 828.41

 828.40

 828.37

 828.38

 828.39

 47.02

 47.00

 46.92

 46.90

 46.87

 46.81

 46.76

 46.20

 45.56

 44.95

 44.33

 43.71

 43.10

 42.47

 41.86

 41.24

 40.63

 40.00

 39.39

 38.76

 38.16

 37.56

 36.93

 36.34

 35.73

 35.48

 35.47

 35.44

 35.45

 35.46

STORAGE

-0.03

-0.03

-0.08

-0.03

-0.03

-0.06

-0.05

-0.56

-0.64

-0.61

-0.62

-0.62

-0.61

-0.63

-0.61

-0.62

-0.62

-0.63

-0.61

-0.63

-0.61

-0.60

-0.63

-0.59

-0.62

-0.25

-0.01

-0.03

+0.01

+0.01

CHANGE

31

33

8

34

33

15

34

3

-12

6

3

6

11

0

5

5

5

-2

9

-2

10

14

0

22

9

15

80

34

57

57

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

SPILL

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 35

 262

 298

 298

 298

 298

 299

 299

 295

 298

 298

 298

 298

 299

 299

 299

 301

 302

 301

 121

 70

 32

 32

 32

OUTLET

 11

 13

 13

 14

 13

 14

 14

 12

 4

 6

 8

 8

 10

 8

 9

 9

 8

 7

 7

 7

 6

 6

 5

 6

 8

 8

 6

 8

 9

 9

C.F.S.

 .28

 .32

 .33

 .35

 .33

 .36

 .35

 .30

 .10

 .16

 .21

 .21

 .27

 .22

 .24

 .23

 .21

 .19

 .18

 .19

 .18

 .17

 .15

 .17

 .22

 .24

 .19

 .23

 .25

 .25

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .24

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .03

 .04

 .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

SEPTEMBER 2010 RUN DATE: 10/01/2010

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -11.64 523 5,800 300 266 7.08 .31

ACRE-FEET -11,640 1,037 11,504 595 528

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 595

OUTLET

TOTAL

 11,504

 12,099

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .31

JULY 1, 2010 .33

 47.05

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
#### § 802.309 Absence of parties.

The unexcused absence of a party or his or her authorized representative at the time and place set for argument shall not be the occasion for delay of the proceeding. In such event, argument on behalf of other parties may be heard and the case shall be regarded as submitted on the record by the absent party. The presiding judge may, with the consent of the parties present, cancel the oral argument and treat the appeal as submitted on the written record.