alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 32
                                     U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
                                           Central Valley Operations Office
 
                                        Madera Canal and Millerton Lake
 
Monthly Deliveries in AF                          1997
 
 
Water Users           Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec   Total
 
 
MADERA CANAL
 
Chowchilla WD      17978  5022 18036 18290 22578 26712 23412 14489 15809     0     0     0  162326
Madera ID          16148 12433 31512 23578 26686 32488 34334 21618 16665 17954     0     0  233416
Soquel                 0     0     0     0     0     0  1000  1302  6127  3435    54     0   11918
 
 
Total              34126 17455 49548 41868 49264 59200 58746 37409 38601 21389    54     0  407660
 
 
MILLERTON LAKE
 
County of Madera       2     1     4     5     7     6     7     8     6     5     3     1      55
Fresno County # 18     5     5     7    12    19    18    20    22    15    11     7     5     146
Gravelly Ford WD       0     0  1878  2191  2276  2245  2091     0   612   330     0     0   11623
 
Total                  7     6  1889  2208  2302  2269  2118    30   633   346    10     6   11824
 
 
*  Data supplied by Fresno Field Division, Contracts Administration Division
**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 IVI Communications, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
      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 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.








Date:
      August 15, 2007





/s/
      Charles Roodenburg


Charles
      Roodenburg, Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of  Foresight  Specialists,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2001, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: October 31, 2003                                Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
* 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. 98-20652 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES WILLIE WILLIAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-90-CR-330-3

- - - - - - - - - -

July 16, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Willie William appeals the denial of his § 2255 motion

to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. William argues that his

indictment was defective because it lacked the phrase “in relation

to” and that his factual basis was insufficient to support his

guilty plea. William did not raise these issues in the district

court and, hence, they are reviewed only for plain error. S ee

United States v. Spires

, 79 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1996);

United States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc).

William’s indictment was sufficient because the indictmentNo. 98-20652 -2-

referenced the statute to increase clarity. See United States v.

Hernandez

, 891 F.2d 521, 523-25 (5th Cir. 1989). William’s next

argument was raised in a prior § 2255 and is barred by the doctrine

of law of the case. S ee United State s v. McClain , 593 F.2d 658,

664 (5th Cir. 1979).

AFFIRMED.
### §1300h–6. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 100–420, §8, Sept. 8, 1988, 102 Stat. 1579, which related to distribution of judgment funds, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §1041h. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 106–568, title VII, §710, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2916, which provided that no provision of this subchapter would be construed to affect any treaty to which a tribe referred to in this subchapter was a party, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4618 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4618

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2016

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 121 Spring Street SE in Gainesville, Georgia, as the ``Sidney Oslin 
      Smith, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SIDNEY OSLIN SMITH, JR. FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 121 Spring Street SE in Gainesville, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sidney Oslin Smith, Jr. Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Sidney Oslin Smith, Jr. Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 2.15 What is multitrack processing and how does it affect your request? ( a ) Bureaus use processing tracks to distinguish simple requests from more complex ones on the basis of the estimated number of workdays needed to process the request.
( b ) In determining the number of workdays needed to process the request, the bureau considers factors such as the number of pages involved in processing the request or the need for consultations.
( c ) The basic processing tracks are assigned according to the expected complexity of the collection/review/production process of each request and designated as follows: ( 1 ) Simple: requests in this track would generally take between one to five workdays to process;
( 2 ) Normal: requests in this track would generally take between six to twenty workdays to process;
( 3 ) Complex: requests in this track would generally take between twenty-one workdays and sixty workdays to process; or
( 4 ) Extraordinary: requests in this track involve very complex processing challenges, which may include a large number of potentially responsive records, and would generally take over sixty workdays to process.
( d ) Bureaus also have a specific processing track for requests that are granted expedited processing under the standards in § 2.20 of this part. These requests will be processed as soon as practicable.
( e ) Bureaus must advise you of the track into which your request falls and, when appropriate, will offer you an opportunity to narrow your request so that it can be placed in a different processing track. If you request placement in a particular processing track but the bureau places you in a different processing track, the bureau will provide you with an explanation of why you were not placed in the processing track you requested.
( f ) The use of multitrack processing does not alter the statutory deadline for a bureau to determine whether to comply with your FOIA request (see § 2.16 of this part).
( g ) You may track the status of your request, including its estimated processing completion date, at *https://foia.doi.gov/requeststatus/ .*
[77 FR 76902, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 11128, Mar. 3, 2016; 81 FR 92694, Dec. 20, 2016; 84 FR 61827, Nov. 14, 2019]
§ 10010.20 Adoption. ( a ) An EA prepared for a proposal before the Commission by another agency, entity or person, including an applicant, may be adopted if, upon independent evaluation by the responsible Commission official, it is found to comply with this part and relevant provisions of the CEQ regulations.
( b ) When appropriate and efficient, a responsible Commission official may augment such an EA when it is essentially, but not entirely, in compliance in order to make it so.
( c ) If an EA or augmented EA is adopted, the responsible Commission official must prepare his/her own NOI or FONSI which also acknowledges the origin of the EA and takes full responsibility for its scope and content.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














I,
Jie Wang, Chief Financial Officer of China YouTV Corp.,
certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350
as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended June 30, 2008 (the
"Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China YouTV
Corp.







China
      YouTV CorporationOctober
      3, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Jie
      WangJie
      WangChief
      Financial Officer





A
signed  original of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within
the  electronic  version of this
written  statement required by Section 906, has been provided to China
YouTV Corp. and will be  retained  by  China YouTV
Corp.  and  furnished  to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 801.203 Disqualification of Board Members. ( a ) During the period in which the Chairman or the other members serve on the Board, they shall be subject to the Department's regulations governing ethics and conduct set forth at 20 CFR part 0.
( b ) Notice of any objection which a party may have to any Board member who will participate in the proceeding shall be made by such party at the earliest opportunity. The Board member shall consider such objection and shall, in his or her discretion, either proceed with the case or withdraw.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports included in this registration statement and to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement of our report dated January 29, 1999
(except with respect to the matter discussed in Note 17, as to which the date is
March 16, 1999) included in Lear Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998, and to all references to our firm included in this
registration statement.

                                          /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Detroit, Michigan,

  November 5, 1999.
#### Jose Ricardo RUIZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-50272.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Jose Ricardo Ruiz, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

*655Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Ricardo Ruiz, federal prisoner # 12399-080, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his guilty-plea conviction for escape from the custody of a federal prison camp. *See*18 U.S.C. § 751(a); *United States v. Ruiz,*180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.1999). He argues that he is entitled to pursue habeas relief under the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Ruiz has not made the requisite showing to qualify for the “savings clause” of § 2255. His challenge to the sentencing court’s application of the Guidelines is not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the offense no longer qualifies as a violation of law. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition is affirmed.

Ruiz’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
September 2022

STORAGE ACRE-FEET COMPUTED* RELEASE - C.F.S.

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE INFLOW C.F.S. OUTLET SPILL

1 731.50 1,640 -1 -1 0 0

2 731.46 1,638 -2 -1 0 0

3 731.42 1,636 -2 -1 0 0

4 731.40 1,635 -1 -1 0 0

5 731.38 1,634 -1 -1 0 0

6 731.37 1,634 0 0 0 0

7 731.34 1,633 -1 -1 0 0

8 731.32 1,632 -1 -1 0 0

9 731.29 1,630 -2 -1 0 0

10 731.25 1,629 -1 -1 0 0

11 731.23 1,628 -1 -1 0 0

12 731.19 1,626 -2 -1 0 0

13 731.17 1,625 -1 -1 0 0

14 731.17 1,625 0 0 0 0

15 731.17 1,625 0 0 0 0

16 731.17 1,625 0 0 0 0

17 731.18 1,626 1 1 0 0

18 731.30 1,631 5 3 0 0

19 731.75 1,650 19 10 0 0

20 731.81 1,653 3 2 0 0

21 731.84 1,654 1 1 0 0

22 731.86 1,655 1 1 0 0

23 731.89 1,656 1 1 0 0

24 731.92 1,658 2 1 0 0

25 731.94 1,658 0 0 0 0

26 731.97 1,660 2 1 0 0

27 731.99 1,661 1 1 0 0

28 732.02 1,662 1 1 0 0

29 732.02 1,662 0 0 0 0

30 732.04 1,663 1 1 0 0

TOTALS 22 12 0 0

ACRE-FEET 22 24 0 0

Comments: *Computed inflow is the sum of chnage in storage, releases and evaporation.

SUMMARY

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Outlet 0

Spill 0

Total 0

Historical Archive and Report Database

Spring Creek Debris Reservoir Daily 

Operations

Run Date: 10/3/2022
### §1678. Arizona as contract health service delivery area

#### (a) In general

The State of Arizona shall be designated as a contract health service delivery area by the Service for the purpose of providing contract health care services to members of Indian tribes in the State of Arizona.

#### (b) Maintenance of services

The Service shall not curtail any health care services provided to Indians residing on reservations in the State of Arizona if the curtailment is due to the provision of contract services in that State pursuant to the designation of the State as a contract health service delivery area by subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 94–437, title VIII, §808, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title X, §10221(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 935.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 808 of Pub. L. 94–437 is based on section 192(1) of title I of S. 1790, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, as reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate in Dec. 2009, which was enacted into law by section 10221(a) of Pub. L. 111–148.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1678, Pub. L. 94–437, title VIII, §808, formerly title VII, §708, as added Pub. L. 96–537, §8(b), Dec. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 3181; amended Pub. L. 100–713, title VII, §702, Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4827; renumbered title VIII, §808, and amended Pub. L. 102–573, title VII, §701(a), (b), title VIII, §803, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4572, 4585, temporarily designated Arizona as a contract health service delivery area, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–148, title X, §10221(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 935. The repeal is based on section 192(1) of title I of S. 1790, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, as reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate in Dec. 2009, which was enacted into law by section 10221(a) of Pub. L. 111–148.
EXHIBIT 11


                          FIRST KEYSTONE CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                           Quarter Ended March 31,
                                  1998  1997


(Dollars in Thousands)

<S>                                          <C>           <C>
Primary
  Net Income                                 $   1,141     $   1,123
    Shares<F1>
      Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding            2,933,727     2,933,727
      Adjustments - increases or
        decreases                                 None          None
      Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding
        as adjusted                          2,933,727     2,933,727

      Primary earnings per
        common share                         $     .39     $     .38


Assuming full dilution 
  Net Income                                 $   1,141     $   1,123
    Shares<F1>
      Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding            2,933,727     2,933,727
      Adjustments - increases or
        decreases                                 None          None
      Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding
        as adjusted                          2,933,727     2,933,727

      Earnings per common share
        assuming full dilution               $     .39     $     .38



<FN>
<F1>
Restated to reflect a 3 for 1 stock split issued in the form of a 200%
stock dividend paid in 1998.
</FN>
</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00002

- CV
CC Frost Properties, Ltd. v. Brett Birkeland and MSCI 2007

- IQ16 North Carancahua Street, LLC
On Appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018DCV

- 1812

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 15 , 2021
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

 130.98

 131.05

 131.05

 130.94

 130.91

 130.84

 130.79

 130.81

 130.84

 130.99

 131.10

 130.97

 130.66

 130.80

 130.91

 130.76

 130.96

 130.92

 130.92

 130.91

 130.92

 130.94

 130.90

 130.91

 130.96

 130.95

 130.91

 130.71

 130.88

 130.99

 130.87

 688

 696

 696

 683

 679

 671

 666

 668

 671

 689

 702

 686

 651

 667

 679

 663

 685

 680

 680

 679

 680

 683

 678

 679

 685

 684

 679

 657

 676

 689

 675

STORAGE

+2

+8

+0

-13

-4

-8

-5

+2

+3

+18

+13

-16

-35

+16

+12

-16

+22

-5

+0

-1

+1

+3

-5

+1

+6

-1

-5

-22

+19

+13

-14

CHANGE

643

674

681

671

662

649

618

619

640

675

686

693

676

663

624

620

634

624

626

614

605

613

647

668

732

735

698

667

656

624

602

INFLOW

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

PUTAH

 598

 626

 637

 634

 620

 609

 577

 574

 594

 622

 635

 657

 650

 611

 574

 584

 579

 583

 582

 571

 560

 567

 606

 623

 685

 692

 657

 634

 602

 573

 565

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .37

 .37

 .31

 .33

 .26

 .28

 .32

 .38

 .37

 .34

 .33

 .28

 .38

 .31

 .28

 .29

 .25

 .23

 .22

 .27

 .32

 .30

 .30

 .28

 .29

 .21

 .28

 .27

 .32

 .20

 .24

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

JULY 2002 RUN DATE: 08/20/2002

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -11 20,239 18,881 1,333 31 9.18 .00

ACRE-FEET -11 40,144 37,450 2,644 61

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 2,644

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 37,450

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2002 .00

 686

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK