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

31

DAY ELEV

 840.52

 840.54

 840.65

 840.76

 840.78

 840.82

 840.42

 839.95

 839.48

 839.07

 838.57

 838.00

 837.48

 836.98

 836.43

 835.92

 835.38

 834.85

 834.30

 833.76

 833.21

 832.68

 832.14

 831.68

 831.46

 831.18

 830.54

 829.89

 829.28

 828.65

 827.99

 49.76

 49.79

 49.93

 50.07

 50.10

 50.15

 49.64

 49.03

 48.43

 47.91

 47.28

 46.57

 45.93

 45.31

 44.64

 44.02

 43.38

 42.74

 42.10

 41.46

 40.82

 40.21

 39.60

 39.08

 38.83

 38.51

 37.80

 37.08

 36.42

 35.74

 35.03

STORAGE

-0.04

+0.03

+0.14

+0.14

+0.03

+0.05

-0.52

-0.61

-0.60

-0.52

-0.63

-0.71

-0.64

-0.62

-0.67

-0.62

-0.65

-0.63

-0.65

-0.63

-0.64

-0.61

-0.62

-0.52

-0.25

-0.32

-0.71

-0.72

-0.66

-0.68

-0.71

CHANGE

23

54

105

112

55

65

26

13

17

59

4

-28

8

21

-7

17

4

9

0

5

1

9

4

60

27

51

-12

-17

3

5

-8

INFLOW

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 12

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 15

 15

SPILL

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 15

 262

 295

 294

 294

 294

 307

 306

 306

 305

 304

 304

 303

 302

 301

 300

 296

 301

 301

 130

 187

 325

 324

 317

 321

 320

OUTLET

 16

 14

 6

 13

 15

 12

 12

 11

 12

 16

 15

 13

 14

 14

 13

 13

 14

 15

 15

 13

 13

 11

 5

 11

 12

 13

 12

 11

 11

 12

 13

C.F.S.

 .40

 .34

 .14

 .32

 .36

 .28

 .29

 .27

 .29

 .39

 .38

 .34

 .37

 .37

 .33

 .34

 .37

 .39

 .40

 .34

 .35

 .30

 .15

 .30

 .33

 .35

 .34

 .32

 .33

 .34

 .37

INCHES

 .04

 .28

 .24

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .12

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2003 RUN DATE: 03/11/2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -14.79 685 7,389 354 390 10.19 .68

ACRE-FEET -14,790 1,359 14,656 702 774

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 702

OUTLET

TOTAL

 14,656

 15,358

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .68

JULY 1, 2003 .68

 49.80

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 7241
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, David I. Rosenthal, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SpectraLink
Corporation;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)) for the
registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  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):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. August 9, 2004 /s/  DAVID I. ROSENTHALDavid I. RosenthalBy: Vice President of Finance andAdministration and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 3273.17 When may BLM reassess the annual rent for my site license?

BLM may reassess the rent for lands covered by the license, beginning with the 10th year and every 10 years after that.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58594-58595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21918]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Enhanced-Use Lease Development of Property at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Leavenworth, KS

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of intent to enter into an enhanced-use lease.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
intends to enter into an enhanced-use lease of approximately 50 acres 
at the Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center in Leavenworth, Kansas. 
The selected lessee will finance, redevelop, manage, maintain and 
operate a mixed-use development that would provide services and 
accommodations relating to affordable senior housing, long-term care, 
long-term housing for veterans, transitional housing with supportive 
services for veterans, and educational and community support facilities 
on the site, at no cost to VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malinda D. Pugh, Office of Asset 
Enterprise Management (004B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8192.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 38 U.S.C. 8161 et seq. specifically provides 
that the Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he 
determines that at least part of the use of the property under the 
lease will be to provide appropriate space for an activity contributing 
to the mission of the Department; the lease will not be inconsistent 
with and will not adversely

[[Page 58595]]

affect the mission of the Department; and the lease will enhance the 
property or result in improved services to veterans. This project meets 
these requirements.

    Approved: September 22, 2004.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-21918 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
     STAR DOLPHIN, INC.  June 30, 1997  financial  statements and
     is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894532
<NAME>                        STAR DOLPHIN, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997

<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

EDUARDO FRANCISCO CHIRINOS GUERRERO

, Appellant,

v.

ERIKA MARIA BRAIN BEDOYA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 43

[June 7, 2018 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Nicholas Richard Lopane , Judge; L.T.

Case No. FMCE 17

- 008619

.

Nancy A. Hass of Nancy A. Hass, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Kevin Coyle Colbert, Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C IKLIN a nd L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe Influence of Modulated Signal Risetime in Flight Electronics Radiated Immunity Testing with a Mode-Stirred ChamberFor electromagnetic immunity testing of an electronic system, it is desirable to demonstrate its functional integrity when exposed to the full range and intensity of environmental electromagnetic threats that may be encountered over its operational life. As part of this, it is necessary to show proper system operation when exposed to representative threat signal modulations. Modulated signal transition time is easily overlooked, but can be highly significant to system susceptibility. Radiated electromagnetic field immunity testing is increasingly being performed in Mode Stirred Chambers. Because the peak field vs. time relationship is affected by the operation of a reverberating room, it is important to understand how the room may influence any input signal modulation characteristics. This paper will provide insight into the field intensity vs. time relationship within the test environment of a mode stirred chamber. An understanding of this relationship is important to EMC engineers in determining what input signal modulation characteristics will be transferred to the equipment under test. References will be given for the development of this topic, and experimental data will be presentedDocument ID20000025323Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEly, Jay J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Nguyen, Truong X.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Scearce, Stephen A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 2000Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209844NASA/TM-2000-209844L-17943Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 522-14-21-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20000025323.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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51325

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

KATINA ROCHELLE CANDRICK, also known as Katina Lofton, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:09-CR-178-1 

Before DENNIS, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Katina Rochelle Candrick, federal prisoner # 39629-177, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of 

her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce her sentence based on Amendment 

794 to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. By moving to proceed IFP, Candrick is challenging 

the district court’s certification that her appeal was not taken in good faith. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into a 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51325 Document: 00514110305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2017
No. 16-51325

2 

litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points 

arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 

F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court 

that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

826 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a 

reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). Id. If she is eligible, then the 

district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and 

determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the 

particular facts of the case. Id. at 827. We review the decision whether to 

reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States 

v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Although Candrick conclusionally asserts that she is entitled to a 

reduction, she abandons by failing to brief any argument challenging the 

district court’s determination that she is ineligible because Amendment 794 is 

not retroactively applicable. United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th 

Cir. 2006). Even had she briefed the argument, it would fail because 

Amendment 794 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s., and thus has not 

been made retroactively applicable. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826. 

 Candrick therefore cannot show an abuse of discretion on the district 

court’s part. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. She has failed to show that she 

will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. 

Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED. Additionally, because this appeal is 

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 16-51325 Document: 00514110305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2017
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** 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. 98-40699 Conference Calendar

CARL E. DETWEILER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
CHARLES CARVER ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-653

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1999 Before BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Carl Detweiler, TDJC# 734084, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action, which, in various ways, attacks his conviction and sentence for driving while intoxicated. The district court dismissed Detweiler’s action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Detweiler’s claims have not accruedNo. 98-40699 -2- under Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994) and, thus, are frivolous. See Hudson v. Hughes , 98 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 1996); Ruiz v. United States , 160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED as such. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lenore d'Nikinov, Respondent. Edward Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Third Department,

June 28, 1949.

*474
      *Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General, (Wendell P. Brown, Solicitor-General,*and *Francis B. Curran,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Lenore d’Nilcinov*respondent in person.

Safttry, J.

This is an appeal by the Industrial Commissioner from the portion of the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which modified the decision of a Referee. The portion of the decision from which the appeal is taken fixed the date from which the claimant was disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits from the 19th day of August to the 30th day of August, -1948. The Referee found that the claimant was offered employment on the 19th of August, 1948, at a job which was to begin on the 30th day of August, 1948, and that the claimant on the 19th day of August refused such employment without good cause. These findings of the Referee were confirmed by the board and are conclusive.

The referee and the Industrial Commissioner fixed the date of the claimant’s disqualification as of August 19th the day on which she refused the offer of employment. The hoard changed this date in its decision to August 30th, the date on which the job the claimant was offered was to start. The claimant’s disqualification began from the date when she refused the employment and not from the date when the rejected employment was to commence. There was no justification for the action of the board in changing the decision of the Referee to fix the date of disqualification at August 30th. *(Matter of Ewasko,*267 App. Div. 845.)

The decision of the Unemployment Appeal Board insofar as appealed from should be reversed, and the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifiying claimant for benefits effective August 19, 1948, confirmed, without costs.

Foster, P. J., Heffernaft, Brewster and Deyo, JJ., concur.

Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board insofar as appealed from reversed, and'the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant for benefits effective August 19,1948, confirmed, without costs.
#### § 3813.2 Minerals subject to disposition.

The Act of July 20, 1956, applies only to any mineral deposit discovered and located under the U.S. mining laws prior to February 25, 1920, and reserved to the United States under the Act of July 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 509; 30 U.S.C. 122), and which, at the time of application for mineral patent, is subject to valid and subsisting rights under the said mining laws. Only that mineral deposit together with the right to use the surface to prospect for, mine, and remove the said deposit shall, on or after July 20, 1956, be subject to disposal to the holders of such valid and subsisting rights by patent under the mining laws in force at the time of such disposal. “Oil” reserved under the Act of 1914 has been held to include oil shale. See 52 L.D. 329.
[LOGO OF ACERGY]


                      ACERGY S.A. - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

London, England - May 17, 2006 - Acergy S.A. (NASDAQ NM: ACGY; Oslo Stock
Exchange: ACY) held their Annual General Meeting of Shareholders of the
Company on May 15, 2006 to consider business matters presented in the
Notice to Shareholders dated April 3, 2006.

Items 1 to 8 on the agenda were decided in accordance with the Board's
recommendations.

The required 50% quorum for item 9, a proposal to make certain changes to the
Company's Articles of Incorporation, was not achieved.

The Board will consider calling for a second shareholders meeting to decide on
this item 9. The proposed changes were circulated with the convening notices for
the Annual General Meeting of May 15, 2006 and are also available from the
Company upon request. In accordance with the Articles, at such second meeting
there is no requirement for a quorum, however to approve the proposed changes a
2/3rd majority of the shares represented would be required.

Proxies which have been received would remain valid for the second meeting.

Shareholders of record on March 24, 2006 would be entitled to vote. Those
shareholders who have not yet cast their votes, may do so by submitting the
already distributed proxy card as instructed within the new deadline to be set
by the Board.

********************************************************************************

Acergy S.A. is a seabed-to-surface engineering and construction contractor for
the offshore oil and gas industry worldwide. We plan, design and deliver
complex, integrated projects in harsh and challenging environments. We operate
internationally as one group - globally aware and locally sensitive, sharing our
expertise and experience to create innovative solutions. We are more than
solution providers, we are solution partners - ready to make long-term
investments in our people, assets, know-how and relationships in support of our
clients.

********************************************************************************

CONTACTS:
Deborah Keedy / Julian Thomson
Acergy S.A.
UK +44 1932 773767 or +44 1932 773764
US +1 877 603 0267 (toll free)
deborah.keedy@acergy-group.com
julian.thomson@acergy-group.com

www.acergy-group.com

If you no longer wish to receive our press releases please contact:
kelly.good@acergy-group.com