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

 500.55

 502.44

 503.19

 503.13

 502.99

 502.99

 503.18

 503.32

 503.38

 503.37

 503.35

 502.38

 503.47

 504.12

 503.64

 504.47

 505.81

 505.71

 505.67

 506.02

 506.80

 506.33

 506.45

 506.16

 505.99

 506.56

 504.90

 505.45

 505.01

 505.41

 55,899

 57,983

 58,827

 58,758

 58,599

 58,599

 58,815

 58,975

 59,043

 59,032

 59,009

 57,916

 59,146

 59,889

 59,340

 60,294

 61,860

 61,742

 61,695

 62,107

 63,038

 62,477

 62,620

 62,274

 62,071

 62,752

 60,791

 61,436

 60,919

 61,389

STORAGE

-466

+2,084

+844

-69

-159

+0

+216

+160

+68

-11

-23

-1,093

+1,230

+743

-549

+954

+1,566

-118

-47

+412

+931

-561

+143

-346

-203

+681

-1,961

+645

-517

+470

CHANGE

1,488

2,733

2,096

1,705

1,804

1,838

1,805

1,710

1,605

1,549

1,571

1,089

2,303

2,037

1,494

2,279

2,400

1,953

2,642

2,698

2,682

1,892

2,209

1,907

2,061

2,656

1,390

2,782

2,210

2,748

INFLOW

 1,717

 1,677

 1,666

 1,689

 1,733

 1,745

 1,688

 1,628

 1,568

 1,551

 1,577

 1,638

 1,681

 1,660

 1,728

 1,752

 1,603

 1,674

 1,761

 1,760

 1,765

 1,771

 1,768

 1,767

 1,746

 1,690

 1,761

 1,754

 1,757

 1,756

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 264

 563

 486

 239

 193

 191

 123

 147

 243

 284

 333

 430

 463

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 44

 147

 88

 2

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 36

 40

 0

 67

 337

 241

 204

 207

 171

 184

 261

 369

 324

 361

 275

 284

OUTLET

 6

 5

 4

 7

 4

 5

 6

 1

 3

 4

 6

 2

 2

 2

 7

 6

 7

 7

 5

 3

 5

 4

 7

 7

 9

 11

 10

 9

 9

 8

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2001 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 05/16/2001

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +5,024 61,336 51,031 3,959 3,642 171

ACRE-FEET +5,024 121,660 101,220 7,853 7,224 339

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 101,220

SPILL 7,853 116,297

 56,365

OUTLET 7,224

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 1,463

 2,691

 2,071

 1,685

 1,754

 1,769

 1,781

 1,694

 1,587

 1,548

 1,502

 1,072

 2,409

 2,028

 1,464

 2,246

 2,289

 1,955

 2,498

 2,503

 2,465

 1,714

 2,036

 1,824

 1,894

 2,417

 1,230

 2,581

 2,030

 2,571

 58,771

 116,572

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

EVAPORATION.
#### Lexington Bank v. Phenix Insurance Company et al.

Filed October 5, 1905.

No. 13,865.

Debt: Cancelation: Presumption. In the absence o£ evidence, an agent for collection wbo cancels tbe obligation of tbe debtor is presumed to have done so in consideration of the face a'mount of the claim. , .

Error to the district court for Dawson county: Bruno O. Hostetler, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*E. A. Cook,*for plaintiff in error.

[W. *W. Leek*and *H. D. Rhea, contra.*

Ames, C.

The Phenix Insurance Company recovered a judgment against John Everson, which was assigned by its attorneys without consideration, but for collection only, to the Lexington bank, and the assignment was afterwards ratified by the company. After the assignment, Everson sued the the bank upon a money demand for $800, and the bank pleaded set-offs, including the judgment, to the aggregate amount of about $1,000. The suit never came, to trial, but was settled and dismissed, and as a part of the settlement the bank satisfied and discharged of record the insurance company’s judgment. What specific gain or advantage the bank obtained in the settlement by reason of such discharge is not shown by the evidence, and as to whether Everson was at the time pecuniarily responsible there is some conflict; but we think the latter question is immaterial. In the absence of evidence, an agent for col*549lection who cancels the obligation of tbe debtor *must*be presumed to have done so in consideration of tbe face amount of tbe claim. This is an action by tbe insurance company against tbe bank to recover tbe amount of tbe judgment and interest. There is a conflict in tbe evidence as to whether tbe judgment was purchased and owned by tbe bank, or assigned to it for collection as alleged in tbe petition, but tbe jury determined this and all other issues in favor of tbe plaintiff, and returned a verdict accordingly, upon which a judgment was rendered, which this proceeding is prosecuted to reverse.

Tbe plaintiff in error complains of the action of tbe court in tbe giving and refusal of instructions, but tbe main contention of counsel is that tbe verdict is unsupported by evidence. We are not only not able to agree with him, but are of opinion that it is tbe only verdict which tbe evidence would bave supported, and that errors in instructions, if there are any, were without prejudice.

We therefore recommend that tbe judgment of tbe district court be affirmed.

Letton and Oldham, CC., concur.

By tbe Court: For tbe reasons stated in tbe foregoing opinion, it is ordered that tbe judgment of tbe district court be

Affirmed.
### PART VI—TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PASSIVE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Subpart
A.
Interest on tax deferral.
B.
Treatment of qualified electing funds.
C.
Election of mark to market for marketable stock.
D.
General provisions.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–34, title XI, §1122(d)(6), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 977, added items for subparts C and D and struck out former item for subpart C "General provisions".
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                        5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
         Ultronics  Corporation  September 30, 2000 financial  statements and is
         qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                          0000894556
<NAME>                         Ultronics Corporation
<CURRENCY>                     US



<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1.00

<CASH>                                          10,952
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                0
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           437
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,952
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,133)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)



</TABLE>
### §5393. Budget request

#### (a) Requirement of annual budget request

#### (1) In general

The President shall identify in the annual budget request submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 all funds necessary to fully fund all funding agreements authorized under this subchapter, including funds specifically identified to fund tribal base budgets. All funds so appropriated shall be apportioned to the Indian Health Service. Such funds shall be provided to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance which shall be responsible for distribution of all funds provided under section 5385 of this title.

#### (2) Rule of construction

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the Indian Health Service to reduce the amount of funds that a self-governance tribe is otherwise entitled to receive under its funding agreement or other applicable law, whether or not such funds are apportioned to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance under this section.

#### (b) Present funding; shortfalls

In such budget request, the President shall identify the level of need presently funded and any shortfall in funding (including direct program and contract support costs) for each Indian tribe, either directly by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under self-determination contracts, or under compacts and funding agreements authorized under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93–638, title V, §513, as added Pub. L. 106–260, §4, Aug. 18, 2000, 114 Stat. 727.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 458aaa–12 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### § 3740.0-1 Purpose.

The Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 708, 30 U.S.C. 521 subpart), was enacted “To amend the mineral leasing laws and the mining laws to provide for multiple mineral development of the same tracts of public lands, and for other purposes.” The regulations in this part are intended to implement only those sections of said act, hereinafter more fully identified, which require action by the Department of the Interior or its agencies. The expression “Act” when used in this part, means the Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 708). The expression “Leasing Act”, when used in this part, refers to the “mineral leasing laws” as defined in section 11 of the Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat 708).

[35 FR 9738, June 13, 1970]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TERRENCE SELDON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 559 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
### **Subchapter B—Black Lung Benefit Trusts**

Sec.
4951.
Taxes on self-dealing.
4952.
Taxes on taxable expenditures.
4953.
Tax on excess contributions to black lung benefit trusts.
#### Gary LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.L. SPARKMAN, Warden at Marshall County Correctional Facility; A.W. Helmic, Deputy Warden, School Programs; W.M. Williams, Assistant Warden; Lance Butler, Attorney, Inmate Lawyer; Gwen Shaw, Legal Claim Adjudicator, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-60892.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*275Gary Lee, Greenwood, MS, pro se.

James Lawson Hester, Craig, Hester, Luke & Dodson, Ridgeland, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gary Lee, Mississippi prisoner # 39820, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s judgment denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court denied Lee leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Lee is challenging the district court’s certification. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5).

Lee argues that he has newly discovered evidence showing that the defendants failed to provide him with a copy of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and thereby denied his right of access to the courts. Lee has not shown that this evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence pri- or to the district court’s initial judgment denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Lee has not shown that the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion. *See Carimi v. Royal Carabean Cruise Line, Inc.,*959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir.1992).

Lee has failed to show that his 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 *276omitted). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Lee is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Lee is warned that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *see*Fed. R.App. P. 38; *Clark v. Green,*814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir.1987).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
§ 3809.601 What types of enforcement action may BLM take if I do not meet the requirements of this subpart? BLM may issue various types of enforcement orders, including the following: ( a ) *Noncompliance order.* If your operations do not comply with any provision of your notice, plan of operations, or requirement of this subpart, BLM may issue you a noncompliance order; and
( b ) *Suspension orders.* ( 1 ) BLM may order a suspension of all or any part of your operations after— ( i ) You fail to timely comply with a noncompliance order for a significant violation issued under paragraph (a) of this section. A significant violation is one that causes or may result in environmental or other harm or danger or that substantially deviates from the complete notice or approved plan of operations;
( ii ) BLM notifies you of its intent to issue a suspension order; and
( iii ) BLM provides you an opportunity for an informal hearing before the BLM State Director to object to a suspension.
( 2 ) BLM may order an immediate, temporary suspension of all or any part of your operations without issuing a noncompliance order, notifying you in advance, or providing you an opportunity for an informal hearing if— ( i ) You do not comply with any provision of your notice, plan of operations, or this subpart; and
( ii ) An immediate, temporary suspension is necessary to protect health, safety, or the environment from imminent danger or harm. BLM may presume that an immediate suspension is necessary if you conduct plan-level operations without an approved plan of operations or conduct notice-level operations without submitting a complete notice.
( 3 ) BLM will terminate a suspension order under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section when BLM determines you have corrected the violation.
( c ) *Contents of enforcement orders.* Enforcement orders will specify— ( 1 ) How you are failing or have failed to comply with the requirements of this subpart;
( 2 ) The portions of your operations, if any, that you must cease or suspend;
( 3 ) The actions you must take to correct the noncompliance and the time, not to exceed 30 calendar days, within which you must start corrective action; and
( 4 ) The time within which you must complete corrective action.
§ 3260.12 What other orders or instructions may BLM issue? BLM may issue: ( a ) Geothermal resource operational orders for detailed requirements that apply nationwide;
( b ) Notices to Lessees for detailed requirements on a statewide or regional basis;
( c ) Other orders and instructions specific to a field or area;
( d ) Permit conditions of approval; and
( e ) Oral orders, which will be confirmed in writing.
#### The Birkett Mills, Respondent, v. William B. Fenner, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, and certified copies of order approving trustee’s bond and of adjudication of bankruptcy received in support of the judgment. (See *Whitwell*v. *Wright,*136 App. Div. 246.) All concurred.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Quarterly Report of VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Gregory R. Hullinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 10, 2010
#### Juan TOJ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73391.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Paula J. Solorio, Esq., Fellom & Solorio, Andreas Gerling, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, *805CA, Audrey B. Hemesath, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Marianne A. Pansa, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Toj-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

The BIA found the IJ’s adverse credibility finding unsupported in the record, yet also “agree[d] with the Immigration Judge that the cited testimony was implausible and, essentially, unworthy of belief.” Because we are unable to discern what the BIA intended to find, there is no basis for meaningful review of its decision. We grant the petition and remand to the BIA to make its determination clear. *See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 1185, 1193-94 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and 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.
§ 3583.4-2 Royalties, rentals and minimum royalties. Rentals and royalties shall be determined by the authorized officer on the basis of the fair market value, but in no event shall be less than: ( a ) A rental of 50 cents per acre or fraction thereof payable in advance until production is obtained.
( b ) A minimum royalty of $1 per acre or fraction thereof payable in advance after production is obtained.
( c ) A production royalty of 2 percent of the amount or value of the minerals mined, the exact amount of royalty to be fixed prior to the issuance of the lease.
§ 3471.2-1 Disposal of land with a reservation of minerals. ( a ) Where the lands included in a lease or license to mine have been or may be disposed of with reservation of the coal deposits, a lessee or the holder of a license to mine must comply fully with the law under which the reservation was made. See, among other laws, the Acts of March 3, 1909 (34 Stat. 844; 30 U.S.C. 81); June 22, 1910 (35 Stat. 583; 30 U.S.C. 83-85); December 29, 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 862; 43 U.S.C. 291-301); June 17, 1949 (63 Stat. 200); June 21, 1949 (63 Stat. 214; 30 U.S.C. 54); March 8, 1922 (42 Stat. 415; 48 U.S.C. 376-377); and October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2759; 43 U.S.C. 1719).
( b ) Any sale or conveyance of acquired lands by the agency having jurisdiction shall be subject to any lease or license to mine previously issued under the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands.
( c ) Leases on acquired lands outstanding on August 7, 1947, and covering lands subject to the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands may be exchanged for new leases to be issued under that Act.
( d ) When: ( 1 ) The coal is to be mined by other than underground mining techniques,
( 2 ) the surface of the land is owned by a qualified surface owner, and
( 3 ) the lease is issued after August 3, 1977, the lessee shall comply with the terms of the written consent of the qualified surface owner not inconsistent with Federal and state mined land reclamation laws and regulations.
[44 FR 42643, July 19, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 33149, July 30, 1982]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          72,019
<SECURITIES>                                   131,283
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,722
<INVENTORY>                                     41,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               326,270
<PP&E>                                          48,139
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,515
<OTHER-SE>                                     323,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,321
<SALES>                                         74,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,636
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,216
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,933
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<FN>
<F1>The amount is reported as EPS BASIC, NOT PRIMARY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 3838.2 How are SRHA lands different from other Federal lands?

SRHA lands are different from other Federal lands in that the United States owns the mineral estate of SRHA lands, but not the surface estate. Patents issued under the SRHA, and Homestead Act entries patented under the SRHA, reserved the mineral estate to the United States along with the right to enter, mine, and remove any reserved minerals that may be present in the mineral estate.