alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 29

U. S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Central Valley Operations Office

Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley - Streamflow Data

Preliminary-Subject to Change 2020

Mean monthly flow in cfs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Sacramento River

Shasta computed inflow 7040 5191 4635 6317 5143 3485 2842 2562 2700 2957 3278 3241

At Keswick 5043 4372 4891 6505 9142 11443 12077 9735 7075 5762 4521 3419

At Bend Bridge 8050 6557 7054 8516 10910 12563 12935 10383 7502 6401 5786 4504

At Vina Bridge 8027 5943 6399 7647 9608 10453 10651 8743 6686 5703 5246 4459

At Ord Ferry 8401 6110 6156 6668 7917 8369 8493 7152 6067 4853 4802 4304

At Colusa 8461 6356 5990 6441 7925 8499 8383 7327 6296 4331 4471 4216

Below Wilkins Slough 8993 7159 6375 6317 6809 6855 6938 6674 6313 4511 4153 4397

At Verona 14545 12158 11007 10495 9495 10460 11170 11855 10386 7555 8140 8053

Sacramento at "I" Street 16714 14131 12671 11808 10517 12483 14287 13883 12052 9063 9355 9301

Miscellaneous Stations

Folsom computed inflow 1797 1314 2295 5322 3249 1779 1465 1747 1398 753 859 870

American R at Nimbus Dam 2087 1828 1690 1429 1395 2589 3629 2547 1890 1552 1261 1265

Kings River at Pine Flat 389 286 283 243 2046 4816 5920 2668 560 291 123 142

San Joaquin River

At Friant Dam 412 487 249 350 509 377 420 430 419 421 429 413

Near Vernalis 2183 2209 2131 1968 1706 1479 974 492 588 1144 1058 910

Putah Creek

Berryessa computed inflow 297 117 99 112 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

Putah Creek - Lake Solano 37 37 36 65 43 54 55 35 27 24 52 41

Stanislaus River

New Melones computed inflow 917 482 798 1778 1405 781 687 770 428 419 481 682

At Tulloch Dam 876 1409 1377 1566 2356 2629 1804 1674 1263 943 248 262

At Orange Blossom 785 1283 633 593 1141 1217 162 193 219 601 222 196

* Data supplied by Central Valley Operations Office

 Daily mean is derived from 7 am daily reading.
#### Juan Jose Aguilar PINEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74099.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

*200Juan Jose Aguilar Pinedo, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Donald E. Keener, Esq., Alison R. Drucker, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Jose Aguilar Pinedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal for failure to establish good moral character. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review whether an alien’s conduct falls within a per se exclusion category for purposes of eligibility for cancellation of removal. *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. *Moran v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.

Pinedo testified that he paid smugglers $1,500 to enable his spouse to enter the United States without inspection. The BIA concluded that Pinedo was statutorily ineligible for cancellation and ineligible for a waiver. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) (stating that an alien who assists another alien to enter the United States in violation of the law fails the moral character requirement). The agency, however, did not have the benefit of this court’s recent decision in *Moran,*395 F.3d at 1094, which indicates that Pinedo was eligible for a family unity waiver. *See id.*(stating that “the alien-smuggling provision ... does not operate to deny the applicant statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal ... because the Attorney General may waive the applicability of the alien-smuggling provision” when the applicant assisted his or her spouse to enter the United States in violation of the law.) Pinedo therefore remained eligible for cancellation of removal and the agency improperly pretermitted his application. *See id.*

*201In accordance with *INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), we remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §1524. Rules and regulations

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 93–262, title IV, §404, Apr. 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 83.)
EX-4.1




	
	 Exhibit 4.1
 






  
 * SPECIMEN * NUMBER xxxx Cornerstone Management, Inc INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS $0.001 PAR VALUE ORDINARY SHARES SHARES xxxx CUSIP G2431W107 THIS CERTIFIES THAT xxxx Is The Owner of xxxx FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE ORDINARY SHARES OF Cornerstone Management, Inc Transferable on the
books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. Dated: XX/XX/XXXX
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: VSTOCK TRANSFER, LLC Transfer Agent and Registrar By: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Chief Financial Officer #9-P.2 Copyright© 2013 / Reynolds graphics, Inc. / Salt Lake City, Utah 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall
be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. 
  

											
	TEN COM	  	- as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	                    	 	Custodian	 	                
	TEN ENT	  	- as tenants by the entireties	  		 	(Cust)	 		 	(Minor)


											
	JT TEN	  	- as joint tenants with the right of	  	Act	 	                                
                	 	                        	 	
		  	  survivorship and not as tenants	  		 	        (State)	 		 	
		  	  in common	  		 		 		 	
		  	  
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in
the above list.
	 		 	

  

							
	For value
received,                                       
                                         
                        hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:
	
	  

	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
	
	  

	
	  

	
	  

		
	  
	 	shares
	of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
		
	  
	 	, Attorney
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
				
	Dated                                    
                	  		  		 	
	
	X                                   
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                         
                     
	 THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE.
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions).


 SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: 

TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 6-K

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                    Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                              Date: March 03, 2003

                         Commission file number 1-14748

                           OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY OF
                         LONG DISTANCE AND INTERNATIONAL
                          TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROSTELECOM
                          Doing Business as Rostelecom
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                             THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
                         (Jurisdiction of organization)

                         14 1ST TVERSKAYA-YAMSKAYA STR.
                              125047 MOSCOW, RUSSIA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

          Registrant's telephone number, international: +7 095 973 9940

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

               Form 20-F   X             Form 40-F   __
                          ---

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

               Yes   __                  No   X
                                             ---

     If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-________


<PAGE>


     On February 28, 2003, Open Joint Stock Company of Long Distance and
International Telecommunications Rostelecom (the "Company") announced that
Company and RTComm.RU have entered into a transaction whereby the Company is
selling data transmission equipment to RTComm.RU. A copy of the press release
announcing this transaction is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

<PAGE>



                                    SIGNATURE


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:    March 03, 2003                By:   [signed]  Vladimir I. Androsik
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Vladimir I. Androsik
                                          Title: Deputy General Director -
                                                 Finance Director


<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT INDEX



The following exhibit has been disclosed as part of this Form 6-K:


Exhibit Number        Description

     1.               English  translation of the press release  announced the
                      transaction  between the Company and OJSC RTComm.RU.
Table 27
                                     U. S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
                                           Central Valley Operations Office

                                           Tehama-Colusa Canal
                                                 2002

Monthly Deliveries in AF

     Water Users     Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov  Dec  Total

Colusa County WD       77   239  3054  6137  7230 10897 10895  7900  5255  3778   552  106  56120
Cortina WD              0     0    93    83   102   153   164    93    49    85     0    0    822
Davis WD                0    56   261   208   259   569   293   194    13     0     0    0   1853
Dunnigan WD             7    58   345  1595  2002  2948  3230  2334  1443   392    48    9  14411
4-M Water District      0     1   113   242   157   566   505   412   219   120     0    0   2335
GCID                    0     0  2547  3237  3895  4700  4521  2988  1205   879   194    0  24166
Glenn Valley WD         0    13    39    73   207   111   110   171    35     0     0    0    759
Glide WD                0     0   161  1429  3265  3514  3234  2604   471   234    39    7  14958
Holthouse WD            0     0    53    99   287   329   350   254   162    88    18    0   1640
Kanawha WD              0     9  1438  4887  4157  7515  7068  4424  1745   304    76    3  31626
Kirkwood WD             0     0     0    85   119   209   219   235   123    46     0    0   1036
La Grande WD            0     0    22  1011   813  1436  1129   789   183   102    21    0   5506
Myers-Marsh MWC         0     0     0    20    36    20    45     0     0     0     0    0    121
Orland-Artois WD       45   120  1859  6375  9707 13843 13968  9458  6090  2694   256   52  64467
Westside WD             2   296  2187  4210  6693  9826  6705  4299  1811   939    34    3  37005

Total                 131   792 12172 29691 38929 56636 52436 36155 18804  9661  1238  180 256825
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TJ CAIN, a/k/a Thomas J. Cain, Defendant - Appellant. No. 19-7030 (D.C. No. 6:18-CR -00044-RAW-1) (E.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BALDOCK , and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Police received a report that TJ Cain was shooting a gun into the air outside a friend’s house. After finding his truck on the road, offi cers chased him until he crashed into a ditch. When he left the truck and ran acro ss a hayfield, an officer shot him in the leg. Mr. Cain got away a nd lay gravely wounded in thick brush until officers found him some twelve ho urs later. They read him his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and asked him where his gun was located.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 7, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 He nodded in the direction of a nearby br ush thicket, where officers found a gun. They also later found ammun ition in the truck. Mr. Cain was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e), but his trial ended in a hung jury. A superseding i ndictment then re-charged the firearm possession count and further charged one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. A second jury found him guilt y of both counts. The district court dismissed the ammunition conviction on the government’s motion and sentenced Mr. Cain to 120 months in pris on on the firearm conviction. On appeal, Mr. Cain asserts that his c onfession was involuntary and his waiver of his Miranda rights was invalid. Conceding th at he never moved to suppress the evidence of the confession and the firearm that re sulted from it, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C), he argues that the admissi on of that evidence was plain error. He admits making these arguments for preservation purposes onl y because this court will not review an untimely argument on matt ers encompassed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3), absent a showing of good cause. See United States v. Bowline , 917 F.3d 1227, 1228, 1237 (1 0th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , __ S. Ct. __, 2020 WL 872247 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2020) (No. 19-5563). And Mr. Cain concedes that no good cause exists. As a result, although Mr. Cain has preserved his plain-error arguments, Bowline precludes us from considering them.3 We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge
§ 725.538 Reductions; effect of augmentation of benefits based on subsequent qualification of individual. ( a ) Ordinarily, a written request that the benefits of a miner or surviving spouse be augmented on account of a qualified dependent is made as part of the claim for benefits. However, it may also be made thereafter.
( b ) In the latter case, beginning with the month in which such a request is filed on account of a particular dependent and in which such dependent qualifies for augmentation purposes under this part, the augmented benefits attributable to other qualified dependents (with respect to the same miner or surviving spouse), if any, are adjusted downward, if necessary, so that the permissible amount of augmented benefits (the maximum amount for the number of dependents involved) will not be exceeded.
( c ) Where, based on the entitlement to benefits of a miner or surviving spouse, a dependent would have qualified for augmentation purposes for a prior month of such miner's or surviving spouse's entitlement had such request been filed in such prior month, such request is effective for such prior month. For any month before the month of filing such request, however, otherwise correct benefits previously certified by the Office may not be changed. Rather the amount of the augmented benefit attributable to the dependent filing such request in the later month is reduced for each month of the retroactive period to the extent that may be necessary. This means that for each month of the retroactive period, the amount payable to the dependent filing the later augmentation request is the difference, if any, between: ( 1 ) The total amount of augmented benefits certified for payment for other dependents for that month, and
( 2 ) The permissible amount of augmented benefits (the maximum amount for the number of dependents involved) payable for the month for all dependents, including the dependent filing later.
#### Betty Goldberg, Respondent, *v.*David Blustein, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 8d day of March, 1914, denying a motion to compel the plaintiff’s attorney to disclose the address of the plaintiff.

Per Curiam:

We think the plaintiff’s attorney should have disclosed the address of his client. The order appealed from is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
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

I, J. Michael French, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of MDRNA, Inc.
(MDRNA), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MDRNA on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of MDRNA.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2009
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/    J. Michael French             
|Name:                   |  | J. Michael French                    
|Title:                  |  | Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MDRNA
and will be retained by MDRNA and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies
each periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by MDRNA for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
### §159. Moneys due incompetents or orphans

The Secretary of the Interior is directed to cause settlements to be made with all persons appointed by the Indian councils to receive moneys due to incompetent or orphan Indians, and to require all moneys found to be due to such incompetent or orphan Indians to be returned to the Treasury; and all moneys so returned shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum, until paid by order of the Secretary of the Interior to those entitled to the same. No money shall be paid to any person appointed by any Indian council to receive moneys due to incompetent or orphan Indians, but the same shall remain in the Treasury of the United States until ordered to be paid by the Secretary to those entitled to receive the same, and shall bear 6 per centum interest until so paid.

(R.S. §2108.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2108 derived from act July 5, 1862, ch. 135, §6, 12 Stat. 529.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
#### Lucille Janin, Appellant-Respondent, v. Harry Janin, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Divorce Action.) Lucille Janin, Appellant-Respondent, v. Harry Janin, Respondent-Appellant. (Separation Action.)

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle orders on notice. Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, 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

 167

 168

 187

 172

 171

 168

 171

 171

 164

 180

 164

 170

 182

 182

 203

 191

 188

 182

 167

 174

 185

 173

 165

 158

 170

 146

 149

 148

 143

 152

 139

 157

 153

 158

 158

 159

 161

 156

 152

 149

 135

 145

 167

 173

 179

 180

 171

 154

 148

 147

 145

 139

 136

 136

 135

 130

 127

 123

 129

 126

 155

 165

 166

 167

 164

 164

 165

 161

 158

 157

 151

 159

 171

 177

 182

 183

 182

 171

 154

 155

 156

 149

 146

 143

 148

 137

 134

 130

 134

 134

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 12, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
#### In the Matter of Harry Gilbert, Petitioner. Ernert H. Cole, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

All concur.
### §3513. Expiration of statutory authorities

The authorities contained in this chapter shall expire on September 30, 1984.

(Pub. L. 96–53, title IV, §414, Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 377.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 96–53, Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 371, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 512(a) of Pub. L. 96–53, set out as an Effective Date of 1979 Amendment note under section 2151 of this title.