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

 709.80

 711.47

 712.81

 713.96

 714.99

 715.95

 716.82

 718.06

 724.74

 723.33

 712.84

 707.21

 713.58

 709.38

 713.05

 715.26

 716.68

 717.93

 719.06

 720.26

 720.54

 720.54

 720.54

 723.53

 724.24

 724.90

 725.52

 726.05

 726.59

 727.13

 855

 905

 945

 982

 1,015

 1,046

 1,075

 1,117

 1,363

 1,309

 946

 783

 970

 844

 953

 1,024

 1,070

 1,113

 1,152

 1,195

 1,205

 1,205

 1,205

 1,316

 1,343

 1,369

 1,393

 1,414

 1,436

 1,457

STORAGE

+78

+50

+40

+37

+33

+31

+29

+42

+246

-54

-363

-163

+187

-126

+109

+71

+46

+43

+39

+43

+10

+0

+0

+111

+27

+26

+24

+21

+22

+21

CHANGE

40

26

21

20

18

17

16

22

125

126

61

36

95

13

56

37

24

23

21

23

7

1

1

57

15

14

13

12

12

12

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

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 153

 244

 118

 1

 77

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1015

 1005

 1000

 1030

TIME

 .10

 .02

 .05

 .04

COPPER

 .39

 .16

 .23

 .22

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2009 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 1, 2009

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +680 964 0 619

ACRE-FEET +680 1,912 0 1,228

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,228

 1,228

 777

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

 .006

 .005

 .005

 .004
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

 840.38

 840.30

 840.26

 840.18

 840.11

 840.02

 840.02

 839.78

 839.64

 839.50

 839.35

 839.19

 839.05

 839.45

 839.79

 840.15

 840.64

 840.14

 840.12

 839.39

 839.69

 839.29

 839.30

 839.30

 839.22

 839.16

 839.06

 839.24

 839.60

 839.91

 49.58

 49.48

 49.43

 49.33

 49.24

 49.12

 49.12

 48.81

 48.64

 48.46

 48.27

 48.06

 47.89

 48.40

 48.83

 49.29

 49.92

 49.27

 49.25

 48.32

 48.70

 48.19

 48.20

 48.20

 48.10

 48.03

 47.90

 48.13

 48.59

 48.98

STORAGE

-0.05

-0.10

-0.05

-0.10

-0.09

-0.12

+0.00

-0.31

-0.18

-0.18

-0.19

-0.20

-0.18

+0.51

+0.43

+0.46

+0.63

-0.65

-0.03

-0.93

+0.38

-0.51

+0.01

+0.00

-0.10

-0.08

-0.13

+0.23

+0.46

+0.39

CHANGE

284

257

283

255

259

247

305

152

216

214

210

199

210

273

232

246

490

1,399

665

118

782

331

314

307

256

219

245

231

251

217

INFLOW

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 1,159

 110

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

SPILL

 289

 289

 289

 288

 288

 288

 288

 288

 288

 288

 288

 286

 283

 0

 0

 0

 161

 565

 568

 573

 572

 568

 290

 290

 290

 240

 290

 96

 0

 0

OUTLET

 11

 10

 10

 9

 6

 7

 7

 8

 8

 5

 8

 6

 6

 7

 4

 4

 0

 0

 0

 4

 8

 9

 8

 7

 7

 8

 9

 10

 10

 8

C.F.S.

 .27

 .25

 .24

 .21

 .15

 .17

 .17

 .19

 .19

 .12

 .21

 .15

 .16

 .18

 .09

 .11

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .09

 .19

 .22

 .19

 .17

 .17

 .20

 .22

 .24

 .24

 .20

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .00

 .00

 .03

 1.49

 .38

 .00

 .00

 .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

APRIL 2000 RUN DATE: 05/02/2000

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -.68 9,667 8,243 1,549 204 4.99 2.00

ACRE-FEET -680 19,174 16,350 3,072 405

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 3,072

OUTLET

TOTAL

 16,350

 19,422

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 2.00

JULY 1, 1999 17.30

 49.64

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         687,121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  669,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,840,017
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,707,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,922
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,691,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,707,301
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               317,900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                299,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                   299,080
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299,080
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .036
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .036
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                     INVESTORSBANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
              COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)

A reconciliation of the income and shares used in computing the basic and
diluted earnings per share is as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED                   FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      ----------------------                   ---------------------
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,                           SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                           -------------                           -------------
                                                     1999                1998                 1999               1998
                                                     ----                ----                 ----               ----
<S>                                             <C>                 <C>                  <C>                <C>
Net income                                           $ 138,469            $ 73,411            $ 260,203          $ 110,291
                                                ===============     ===============      ===============    ===============

Determination of shares:

Weighted average common shares
   outstanding (basic)                               1,000,000           1,000,000            1,000,000          1,000,000

Assumed conversion of stock options                          -              24,204                    -             23,686
                                                ---------------     ---------------      ---------------    ---------------

Weighted average common shares
   outstanding (diluted)                             1,000,000           1,024,204            1,000,000          1,023,686
                                                ===============     ===============      ===============    ===============


Basic earnings per common share                         $ 0.14              $ 0.07               $ 0.26             $ 0.11
                                                ===============     ===============      ===============    ===============

Diluted earnings per common share                       $ 0.14              $ 0.07               $ 0.26             $ 0.11
                                                ===============     ===============      ===============    ===============
</TABLE>

                                       23
### §6436. Termination

The Commission shall terminate on September 30, 2024.

(Pub. L. 105–292, title II, §209, formerly §206, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2800; renumbered §209 and amended Pub. L. 106–55, §1(b)(2), (c), Aug. 17, 1999, 113 Stat. 401, 405; Pub. L. 107–228, div. A, title VI, §681(g), Sept. 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 1409; Pub. L. 112–75, §6, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 1273; Pub. L. 113–271, §1(2), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2951; Pub. L. 114–71, §3, Oct. 16, 2015, 129 Stat. 563; Pub. L. 116–94, div. J, title VIII, §802, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 3076; Pub. L. 117–181, §2(b), Sept. 30, 2022, 136 Stat. 2177.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–181 substituted "September 30, 2024" for "September 30, 2022".

2019—Pub. L. 116–94 substituted "2022" for "2019".

2015—Pub. L. 114–71 substituted "September 30, 2019" for "September 30, 2015".

2014—Pub. L. 113–271 substituted "September 30, 2015" for "September 30, 2014".

2011—Pub. L. 112–75 substituted "September 30, 2014" for "September 30, 2011".

2002—Pub. L. 107–228 substituted "September 30, 2011" for "May 14, 2003".

1999—Pub. L. 106–55, §1(c), which directed substitution of "on May 14, 2003" for "4 years after the initial appointment of all the Commissioners", was executed by making the substitution for "4 years after the initial appointment of all of the Commissioners", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### Effective Date of 2014 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 113–271 effective as if enacted on Dec. 10, 2014, see section 2 of Pub. L. 113–271, set out as a note under section 6435 of this title.

#### Extension of Termination Date

Pub. L. 112–74, div. I, title I, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 1173, provided in part: "That section 209 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) shall be applied by substituting 'September 30, 2012' for 'September 30, 2011' ".
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bruno Rothenberg, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. Ho opinion. Present Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental and Theoretical Study of Flow Fields Around Ducted-Nacelle ModelsThe flow field near four small-scale ducted-nacelle bodies of revolution has been analytically and experimentally studied to determine exterior and interior mass-flow characteristics, and to measure flow-field overpressures generated by the nacelle's forebody shape. Four nacelle models with the same profile, but of different sizes, were used in the study. Shadowgraph pictures showed inlet shocks attached to the cowl lip (indicating unchoked flow) on all four models, at all the test Mach numbers, through an angle of attack range of 0.0 to 6.0 degrees. Pressure signatures measured in the flow field of the largest of the four nacelle models were compared with those predicted by corrected and uncorrected Whitham theory. At separation distances greater than 3.0 to 4.0 inlet diameters, good agreement was found. Poorer agreement was found at extreme near-field separation distances, but this was attributed to pressure-gage limitations and probe-flow field interactions. The overall favorable results supported a conclusion that corrected Whitham theory was sufficiently accurate to make the nacelle-wing interference-lift code useful for sonic-boom analysis and the preliminary design of supersonic-cruise conceptual aircraft.Document ID19980197301Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMack, Robert J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1998Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:207683L-17741NASA/TM-1998-207683Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 537-07-21-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980197301.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
§ 725.708 How are payments for professional medical services and medical equipment determined? ( a ) ( 1 ) OWCP pays for professional medical services based on a fee schedule derived from the schedule maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the payment of such services under the Medicare program (42 CFR part 414). The schedule OWCP utilizes consists of: An assignment of Relative Value Units (RVU) to procedures identified by Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System/Current Procedural Terminology (HCPCS/CPT) code, which represents the work (relative time and intensity of the service), the practice expense and the malpractice expense, as compared to other procedures of the same general class; an assignment of Geographic Practice Cost Index (GPCI) values, which represent the relative work, practice expense and malpractice expense relative to other localities throughout the country; and a monetary value assignment (conversion factor) for one unit of value for each coded service.
( 2 ) The maximum payment for professional medical services identified by a HCPCS/CPT code is calculated by multiplying the RVU values for the service by the GPCI values for such service in that area and multiplying the sum of these values by the conversion factor to arrive at a dollar amount assigned to one unit in that category of service.
( 3 ) OWCP utilizes the RVUs published, and updated or revised from time to time, by CMS for all services for which CMS has made assignments. Where there are no RVUs assigned, OWCP may develop and assign any RVUs that OWCP considers appropriate. OWCP utilizes the GPCI for the locality as defined by CMS and as updated or revised by CMS from time to time. OWCP will devise conversion factors for professional medical services using OWCP's processing experience and internal data.
( b ) Where a professional medical service is not covered by the fee schedule described in paragraph (a) of this section, OWCP may pay for the service based on other fee schedules or pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for professional medical services.
( c ) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to professional medical services rendered after April 26, 2020.
( d ) OWCP pays for medical equipment identified by a HCPCS/CPT code based on fee schedules or other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for such equipment.
[83 FR 27695, June 14, 2018, as amended at 84 FR 64198, Nov. 21, 2019]
§ 678.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of Understanding? The MOU, fully described in § 678.500, must contain the following information whether the local areas use either the local one-stop or the State funding method: ( a ) The period of time in which this infrastructure funding agreement is effective. This may be a different time period than the duration of the MOU.
( b ) Identification of an infrastructure and shared services budget that will be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and adjusted accordingly to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation methodology that demonstrates how infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to its use of the one-stop center and relative benefit received, and that complies with 2 CFR part 200 (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).
( c ) Identification of all one-stop partners, chief elected officials, and Local WDB participating in the infrastructure funding arrangement.
( d ) Steps the Local WDB, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners used to reach consensus or an assurance that the local area followed the guidance for the State funding process.
( e ) Description of the process to be used among partners to resolve issues during the MOU duration period when consensus cannot be reached.
( f ) Description of the periodic modification and review process to ensure equitable benefit among one-stop partners.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*George Murray, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 12163;

Fourth District —

September 10, 1973.

*Rehearing denied October 16,1973.*

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

Richard J. Doyle, State’s Attorney, of Danville, (John R. McClory, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE SIMKINS

delivered the opinion of the court:

On March 5, 1969, defendant-appellant George Murray entered a plea of guilty to an indictment which charged him with the offense of aggravated battery. On January 26, 1970, defendant was placed on three years probation. Subsequently, on September 27, 1972, the probation. officer filed a report indicating that defendant had violated the terms of his probation, and a bench warrant issued on the same date. On November 28, 1972, defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of one year at the Illinois State Penal Farm at Vandalia.

Defendant here seeks sentence credit for the time which he had served on probation prior to imposition of the sentence imposed and cites section 5 — 6—4(h) of the Uniform Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat-., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1005 — 6-^-4(h)), which provides:

> “Resentencing after revocation of probation or of conditional discharge shall be under Article 4. *Time served on probation*or conditional discharge shall be credited against a sentence of imprisonment or periodic imprisonment.” (Emphasis added.)

It is clear that defendant had spent or served in excess of two years on probation at the time of the imposition of the one-year sentence. Section *9888 — 2—4 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1008 — 2—4) provides in pertinent part that “* * * if the offense being prosecuted has not reached the sentencing stage or a final adjudication, then for purposes of sentencing the sentences under this Act apply if they are less than under the prior law upon which the prosecution was commenced.” A judgment pending on appeal has not reached final adjudication. *(People v. Chupich,*53 Ill.2d 572, 295 N.E.2d 1; *People v. Lobb,*9 Ill.App.3d 650, 292 N.E.2d 750.) Thus the sentence imposed is controlled by the provisions of the Uniform Code of Corrections, section 5 — 6—4(h) quoted above. Since the time spent on probation exceeds the sentence imposed (and indeed the maximum sentence available to be imposed) the defendant is entitled to be discharged from that sentence.

Accordingly, the defendant is ordered discharged.

CRAVEN, P. J., and TRAPP, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


         In connection with the quarterly report of NVCN Corporation.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to his
knowledge:


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

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


Dated: March 19, 2008             By: /s/  Gary Borglund
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Gary Borglund, Principal Executive Officer
                                      and Principal Financial Officer
§ 10010.49 Record of decision. ( a ) Any decision documents prepared for proposals involving an EIS may incorporate all appropriate provisions of 40 CFR 1505.2 (b) and (c).
( b ) If a decision document incorporating these provisions is made available to the public following a decision, it will serve the purpose of a record of decision.
### §289d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1947, ch. 185, §5, 61 Stat. 216, authorized appropriations in the form of advance contributions to the Preparatory Commission of the Organization during the interim period between July 1, 1947 and the coming into force of the constitution of the Organization.
#### § 669.300 What are the general responsibilities of the NFJP grantees?

Each grantee is responsible for providing needed services in accordance with a service delivery strategy described in its approved grant plan. These services must reflect the needs of the MSFW population in the service area and include the services and training activities that are necessary to achieve each participant's employment goals.