alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 2023

STORAGE 1000 ACREFEET COMPUTED*

RELEASE - C.F.S. EVAPORATION

PRECIP

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

49.07

1 839.95 49.03 -0.04 674 632 50 11 0.26 0.00

2 840.08 49.20 0.17 769 632 50 3 0.07 0.54

3 840.45 49.67 0.48 926 632 50 4 0.10 0.83

4 840.47 49.70 0.03 700 632 50 5 0.12 0.01

5 840.31 49.49 -0.21 569 621 50 2 0.04 0.25

6 839.94 49.02 -0.48 434 621 50 2 0.04 0.27

7 839.53 48.49 -0.52 413 621 50 6 0.15 0.14

8 839.05 47.86 -0.63 362 628 50 4 0.10 0.00

9 839.07 47.91 0.05 398 318 50 4 0.11 0.00

10 839.08 47.92 0.01 371 305 50 9 0.23 0.00

11 839.06 47.90 -0.02 349 305 50 7 0.17 0.00

12 838.95 47.76 -0.14 292 305 50 7 0.18 0.00

13 839.04 47.87 0.11 221 105 50 9 0.22 0.00

14 839.17 48.04 0.16 250 105 50 12 0.31 0.00

15 839.35 48.27 0.23 284 105 50 14 0.35 0.00

16 839.58 48.56 0.29 308 105 45 11 0.28 0.00

17 839.81 48.85 0.29 309 105 45 11 0.28 0.00

18 840.17 49.31 0.46 394 105 45 12 0.30 0.00

19 840.40 49.61 0.30 407 200 45 13 0.32 0.00

20 840.74 50.05 0.44 586 307 45 13 0.31 0.00

21 840.58 49.84 -0.21 566 611 45 14 0.34 0.00

22 840.35 49.54 -0.30 518 611 45 11 0.27 0.00

23 840.05 49.16 -0.38 475 611 45 13 0.31 0.00

24 839.79 48.83 -0.33 500 611 45 11 0.27 0.00

25 839.46 48.41 -0.42 453 611 45 9 0.23 0.00

26 839.14 48.00 -0.40 397 544 45 12 0.30 0.00

27 839.23 48.11 0.11 414 302 45 10 0.25 0.00

28 839.29 48.19 0.08 396 302 45 11 0.28 0.00

29 839.34 48.25 0.06 391 302 45 12 0.31 0.00

30 839.35 48.27 0.01 368 302 45 14 0.34 0.00

31 839.34 48.25 -0.01 353 302 45 13 0.32 0.00

TOTALS -0.81 13,847 12,498 1,470 289 7.16 2.04

ACRE-FEET -810 27,466 24,790 2,916 573

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

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Outlet 24,790

Spill 2,916

Total 27,706

Precipitation

This month = 2.04

October 01, 2022 

To date =

27.80

SUMMARY

Historical Archive and Report Database

Stony Gorge Reservoir Daily Operations

Run Date: 6/15/2023
§ 802.408 Notice of request for reconsideration. ( a ) In the event that a party requests reconsideration of a decision or order, he or she shall do so in writing, in the form of a motion, stating the supporting rationale for the request, and include any material pertinent to the request.
( b ) The request shall be sent by mail, or otherwise presented, to the Clerk of the Board. Copies shall be served on all other parties.
#### § 15.11 Explosives and dangerous weapons.

No person shall carry, use or possess within the Preserve firearms of any description, air rifles, spring guns, bows and arrows, slings, spear guns, harpoons, or any other kind of weapon potentially harmful to the reef structure. The use of such weapons from beyond the boundaries of the Preserve and aimed or directed into the Preserve is forbidden. The use or possession of explosives within the Preserve is prohibited.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, (the Form
10-Q), 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 8, 2007
    
    /s/ James K. B. Hesketh

James K. B. HeskethChief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin Ericksteen, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 of
Foresight Specialists, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented   in  this   annual   report  our   conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 15, 2005
/s/ Kevin Ericksteen
------------------------
By: Kevin Ericksteen, CEO
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6198** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL ANTHONY CHERRY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the West ern District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00040

- RLV

- DSC

- 1 ; 5:10

- cv 00103

- RLV )

Submitted : April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismisse d by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael Anthony Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Cherry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)( 1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by de monstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Cherry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reginald Eugene HAYDEN, a/k/a Bubba, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7777.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 6, 2006.

*794Reginald Eugene Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Hayden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, which the district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayden has not made the requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Hayden’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Hayden’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of appealability, decline to authorize Hayden to file a successive § 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
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

 3,535

 3,429

 3,436

 3,119

 3,124

 3,310

 3,491

 3,388

 3,982

 3,013

 2,753

 3,966

 3,973

 3,555

 3,657

 3,237

 3,509

 2,804

 3,591

 3,410

 3,509

 3,469

 3,026

 3,044

 3,466

 3,331

 4,096

 3,333

 3,292

 3,496

 72,968

 72,678

 72,302

 71,951

 71,316

 70,718

 70,327

 70,127

 69,839

 70,130

 69,486

 68,627

 68,963

 69,290

 69,202

 69,216

 68,831

 68,723

 67,950

 67,964

 67,806

 67,749

 67,657

 67,149

 66,683

 66,642

 66,474

 67,042

 66,856

 66,640

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2005 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: March 14, 2006

 76,503

 76,107

 75,738

 75,070

 74,440

 74,028

 73,818

 73,515

 73,821

 73,143

 72,239

 72,593

 72,936

 72,845

 72,859

 72,453

 72,340

 71,527

 71,541

 71,374

 71,315

 71,218

 70,683

 70,193

 70,149

 69,973

 70,570

 70,375

 70,148

 70,136

 5,170,000

 5,149,000

 5,127,000

 5,106,000

 5,085,000

 5,063,000

 5,042,000

 5,021,000

 5,000,000

 4,978,000

 4,957,000

 4,936,000

 4,914,000

 4,893,000

 4,872,000

 4,850,000

 4,829,000

 4,808,000

 4,786,000

 4,765,000

 4,744,000

 4,722,000

 4,701,000

 4,680,000

 4,659,000

 4,637,000

 4,616,000

 4,595,000

 4,573,000

 4,552,000

 SHASTA

 INFLOW 

C. F. S. 

 PREV DAY

 F. C. PAR 

 (COL 3) 

 F. C. 

 PARAM 

 (COLS. 

 1 + 2 ) 

 .0356* 

 X DAYS 

 12/23 THRU

3/20 

 530,000

 MINUS 

 F. C. 

 PARAM

 COLS 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (1,300,000 

 - COL 6 ) 

 MINUS 

 14,943 

 PER DAY 

 AFTER 

 ADJUSTED 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (7-8) 

 PERM 

 STORAGE 

 COMMENTS:

 * LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

 CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) )

 IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE. 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 76,809
### §§199, 200. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–621, §10(k)(2), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3380

Section 199, act Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 79, 40 Stat. 373, related to transfer of insane patients from military hospitals to nearest public hospitals.

Section 200, acts Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 79, 40 Stat. 373; 1940 Reorg. Plan No. IV, §11(a), eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2422, 54 Stat. 1236; 1953, Reorg. Plan No. 1, §5, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Oct. 17, 1979, Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), 93 Stat. 695, related to transfer of part of appropriations for support of patients at Saint Elizabeths Hospital to public hospitals for patient support.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1987, see section 12(b) of Pub. L. 98–621, set out as an Effective Date note under section 225 of this title.
Exhibit 10.20


 


Spousal Consent


 


I, Jianping Cheng (ID number: 51011119680403353X), am the legal
spouse of Yuanfen YANG (ID number: 510107197408210928) (“My Spouse”). I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree
My Spouse to sign the following documents (the “Transaction Documents”) on September 6, 2018, and agree to dispose
of the equity interest in Chengdu Puyi Bohui Information Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) held by and registered
under the name of My Spouse in accordance with the provisions of the following documents:


 


		(1)	The Equity Pledge Agreement entered into by My Spouse, Puyi Enterprises Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”),
the Company, and other related party;



 


		(2)	The Exclusive Option Agreement entered into by My Spouse, WFOE, the Company, and other related party; and



 


		(3)	The Power of Attorney executed by My Spouse authorizing WFOE to enjoy and exercise his/her rights and obligations raising from
the shareholding of equity interests in the Company.



 


I hereby confirm that I am not entitled to any right with respect
to the equity interest in the Company, and undertake not to raise any claim on the equity interest in the Company. I further confirm
that My Spouse’s performance of the Transaction Documents and further modification or termination of the Transaction Documents
will not require my separate authorization or consent.


 


I hereby undertake to sign all necessary documents and take
all necessary actions to ensure the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) to be properly performed.


 


I hereby agree and undertake that if I obtain any equity interest
in the Company for any reason, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) and abide by the obligations
of the shareholders of the Company under the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time), and for such purpose, once requested
by WFOE or its appointed third party, I shall sign a series of written documents with substantially the same form and content as
the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time).


 





	By:	/s/ Jianping Cheng	 	By:	/s/ Jianhua Feng
	 	 	 	 	 
	Signatory: Jianping Cheng	 	Witness: Jianhua Feng
	Date: September 6, 2018	 	Date: September 6, 2018


 




Strictly Confidential
§ 683.220 What are the internal controls requirements for recipients and subrecipients of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I and Wagner-Peyser Act funds? ( a ) Recipients and subrecipients of WIOA title I and Wagner-Peyser Act funds must have an internal control structure and written policies in place that provide safeguards to protect personally identifiable information, records, contracts, grant funds, equipment, sensitive information, tangible items, and other information that is readily or easily exchanged in the open market, or that the Department or the recipient or subrecipient considers to be sensitive, consistent with applicable Federal, State and local privacy and confidentiality laws. Internal controls also must include reasonable assurance that the entity is: ( 1 ) Managing the award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award;
( 2 ) Complying with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards;
( 3 ) Evaluating and monitoring the recipient's and subrecipient's compliance with WIOA, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards; and
( 4 ) Taking prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified.
( b ) Internal controls should be in compliance with the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). See 2 CFR 200.303.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Harold L. Jackson, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 57045;

First District (5th Division) —

July 27, 1973.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER.

*754James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Harold A. Cowen and Shelvin Singer, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel,) for appellant.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and Terrence McQuigg, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.
Table 23

U. S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Central Valley Operations Office

Preliminary Data Subject to Change Madera Canal and Millerton Lake

2018

Monthly Deliveries in AF

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

MADERA CANAL

Chowchilla WD 0 0 0 19294 22029 18474 18554 61 0 0 0 0 78412

Madera ID 0 0 0 13853 23270 23,391 26,424 19,391 730 0 0 0 107059

Soquel (Madera non-proj.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 33147 45299 41865 44978 19452 730 0 0 0 185471

MILLERTON LAKE

County of Madera 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 29

Fresno County Wks #18 6 6 5 8 12 15 16 16 13 22 9 9 137

Gravelly Ford WD 0 0 0 423 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 624

.

Total 8 8 7 432 215 18 20 20 16 24 11 11 790

Notes: Data provided by South-Central California Area Office-Fresno

 Delivery data is based on District turn-out readings and may include water in addition to water service contract deliveries.
#### § 2091.3 Segregation and opening resulting from a proposal or application.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO-200-0777-XZ-241A] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Front Range Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held November 3, 2004, from 9:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

Holy Cross Abbey Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 50, Canon City, Colorado 81212. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ken Smith, (719) 269-8500. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The 15 member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Royal Gorge Field Office and San Luis Valley, Colorado. Planned agenda topics include: Manager updates on current land management issues; San Luis Valley and Arkansas River Travel Management Plan updates/discussion and a discussion on the Simpson and McIntire Property. All meetings are open to the public. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Council at 9:15 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Councils consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Council Meeting will be maintained in the Royal Gorge Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Meeting Minutes are also available at:                     *http://www.blm.gov/​rac/​co/​frrac/​co_​fr.htm*.                 

Dated: September 17, 2004. 

Linda McGlothlen, 

Acting Royal Gorge Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. 04-21563 Filed 9-24-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P