alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 12, 2003

Via First-Class Mail and E-Mail

Michael J. Ryan

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Shasta Area Manager

16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard

Shasta Lake, CA 96019-8400

Re: Revised Article 9 Water Quality Language – General Settlement Contract 

Negotiations – February 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Ryan:

As an additional counter-proposal to the Bureau of Reclamation’s USBR Exhibit 11, I 

propose the following:

1. Acceptance of Reclamation’s proposed language with the deletion of the clause 

calling for termination in the event that the parties are unable to agree upon an adjustment of the 

Settlement Contract after a future State Water Resources Control Board Bay-Delta decision. 

2. Acceptance, with some re-wording, of the “base-line” provisions in 

Reclamation’s draft.

3. Addition of a provision which addresses the Base Supply rescheduling charge.

I have enclosed, for your review, a re-draft of what would be a new Article 9(c) that 

reflects this counter-proposal as well as a draft of what would be the full Article 9.

This proposal is made on behalf of GCID with the concurrence of Kevin O’Brien. In 

light of our desire to reach final resolution on this matter by the end of the February 18, 2003 

negotiating session, I have forwarded the proposal to you prior to my having had an opportunity 

to discuss this proposal fully with other Settlement Contractors. I will, however, do so prior to 

the February 18, 2003 negotiating session.
Michael J. Ryan

February 12, 2003

Page 2

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional 

information.

Very truly yours,

Stuart L. Somach

Attorney

SLS:sb

Encl.

cc: O.L. “Van” Tenney

Kevin M. O’Brien

J. Mark Atlas

Paul Bartkiewicz

William H. Baber, III

John Kenny

William F. Menke

Dennis Michum

David J. Guy

Marc E. Van Camp

Dick Stevenson

John Davis

Don Bultema

Gary Nuss

Andrew M. Hitchings
#### Alice Frontenac, Respondent-Appellant, v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Appellant-Respondent, and Beacon Chemical Corp., Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant, and, with costs to the defendant-respondent against the ¡plaintiff-appellant plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-appellant. No opinion. Present — Peck, IP. Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.; Peck, P. J., I dissent upon *767the ground that recovery by the plaintiff is dependent upon expert testimony which is incredible. The plaintiff may have a cause of action against appellant, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, based on the doctrine of res *ipsa loquitur,*but since the case was not tried on that theory, the judgment may not be supported on that theory. I therefore dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial as to all of the issues.
## Subtitle B—Estate and Gift Taxes

Chapter
Sec. 1

11.
Estate tax
2001
12.
Gift tax
2501
13.
Tax on generation-skipping transfers
2601
14.
Special valuation rules
2701
15.
Gifts and bequests from expatriates
2801

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2008**—Pub. L. 110–245, title III, §301(b)(2), June 17, 2008, 122 Stat. 1646, added item for chapter 15.

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §11602(c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–500, added item for chapter 14.

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–514, title XIV, §1431(b), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2729, struck out "certain" after "Tax on" in item for chapter 13.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XX, §2006(b)(1), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1888, added item for chapter 13.

1  Section numbers editorially supplied.
### §564i. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 732, §10, 68 Stat. 721, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the tribe or to a public or nonprofit body any federally owned property deemed necessary for Indian use, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
February 3, 2016

 Exemption No. 12258A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–2059

Mr. Patrick Heaphy

Liberty Post, LLC 

2 Hartshorn Lane

West Nyack, NY 10994

Dear Mr. Heaphy:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated September 8, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 

61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data 

collection. You requested an amendment to conduct closed-set motion picture and television 

filming to your operations.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12258

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to add closed-set motion picture and television filming to its UAS 

operations.
2

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12258 remain in effect except 

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to permit closed-set motion picture and 

television filming. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are

permitted. 

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
----

Appeal brought on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS)

(Case C-311/05 P)

(2005/C 243/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS), was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A., represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal and uphold its claims.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is founded on three grounds of appeal:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement by the Second Board of Appeal of the principle of legality and of the rights of defence of Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A.. The Court of First Instance should not have confined itself to consideration of the legality of the contested decision but should have carried out a new and thorough examination of the case in the light of the wording of the contested decisions and the specific claims of the applicant and the intervener.

The second ground of appeal alleges that the Second Board of Appeal infringed the principle of legality and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94. (1) The Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in that it rectified and corrected with its own arguments the substantive errors made by the Second Board of Appeal in connection with the application of the grounds of refusal in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 to the appellant's figurative marks.

The third ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal fails to state grounds for the purposes of Article 253 EC. The judgment under appeal does not show clearly and unequivocally the reasons which led the Court to hold that the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 applied to the applicant's figurative marks.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).

----
### §2043. Transfers for insufficient consideration

#### (a) In general

If any one of the transfers, trusts, interests, rights, or powers enumerated and described in sections 2035 to 2038, inclusive, and section 2041 is made, created, exercised, or relinquished for a consideration in money or money's worth, but is not a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth, there shall be included in the gross estate only the excess of the fair market value at the time of death of the property otherwise to be included on account of such transaction, over the value of the consideration received therefor by the decedent.

#### (b) Marital rights not treated as consideration

#### (1) In general

For purposes of this chapter, a relinquishment or promised relinquishment of dower or curtesy, or of a statutory estate created in lieu of dower or curtesy, or of other marital rights in the decedent's property or estate, shall not be considered to any extent a consideration "in money or money's worth".

#### (2) Exception

For purposes of section 2053 (relating to expenses, indebtedness, and taxes), a transfer of property which satisfies the requirements of paragraph (1) of section 2516 (relating to certain property settlements) shall be considered to be made for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 388; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §425(a)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 803.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–369 amended subsec. (b) generally, designating existing provisions as par. (1) and adding par. (2).

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §425(c)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 804, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section and section 2053 of this title] shall apply to estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 18, 1984]."
§ 3212.11 How do I obtain a suspension of operations or a suspension of operations and production on my lease? ( a ) If you are the operator, you may request in writing that BLM suspend your operations and production for a producing lease. Your request must fully describe why you need the suspension. BLM will determine if your suspension is justified and, if so, will approve it.
( b ) BLM may suspend your operations on any lease in the interest of conservation.
( c ) A suspension under this section may include leases committed to an approved unit agreement. If leases committed to a unit are suspended, the unit operator must continue to satisfy unit terms and obligations, unless BLM also suspends unit terms and obligations, in whole or in part, under subpart 3287.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-007-AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD beconsidered a "significant regulatory action"? YES () explain NO (Xl DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES () explam NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: WiII the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ()explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation inAlaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Is i appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where avi1tion might be the only mode of transportation? YES ()explain NO (X)
- Skip to Primary Navigation
    - Skip to Main Content
    - Skip to Footer

        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   

      -  Water & Power          - Dams
        - Powerplants
        - Projects
        - Agrimet/Hydromet
        - Water Operations 
      -  Resources & Research          - Programs
        - Technical Service Center
        - Research & Development
        - Reclamation Manual
        - Reclamation Information Sharing Environment (RISE)
        - Environmental Resources/Reports
        - Library 
      -  About Us          - Mission
        - Fact Sheet
        - Commissioner
        - Addresses/Contacts
        - Organizational Chart
        - Leadership Bios
        - Employment
        - Contact 
      -  Recreation & Public Use          - Find Recreation
        - Recreation.gov
        - Public Use 
      -  News & Multimedia          - News Releases
        - News Stories
        - Speeches
        - Congressional Testimony
        - Fact Sheets
        - Photos
        - Multimedia
        - Social Media 

# California-Great Basin

Welcome to the Bureau of Reclamation California-Great Basin

            - Reclamation
            - California-Great Basin
            - CVP
            - Ratesetting
            - CVP Annual Ratebooks & Schedules
            - CVP Ratebooks - Irrigation, 2007

Region 10              - Region 10 Home
              - About Us
              - Area Offices
              - Central Valley Project (CVP)                  - About the CVP
                - Water Info Links
                - Ratesetting
                - Projects/Activities
                - Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation          of the CVP and SWP
                - Laws/Regs/Links
                - Financial Information 
                - Long-Term Water Transfer Program
                - Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) 
              - Programs & Activities
              - Projects & Facilities
              - Doing Business with Reclamation
              - Public Affairs 
              - Employment
              - Recreation
              - Site Index
              - Contact Us

## CVP Ratebooks - Irrigation, 2007

*Note:  Documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) require Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher to view, download Adobe Acrobat Reader*
*Last Updated: 10/11/22*

## More Information about the Bureau of Reclamation

## Stay in Touch

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Contact Us
            - Site Index
            - Accessibility
            - Disclaimer
            - DOI
            - FOIA
            - No Fear Act
            - Notices
            - Privacy Policy
            - Quality of Information
            - Recreation.gov
            - USA.gov
### SUBCHAPTER III—PREVENTION OF DIVERSION OF CERTAIN GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES TO IRAN
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

JANICE BUCKNER, 

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3144

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH0752120230-I-1.

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Janice Buckner moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 13-3144 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2013
BUCKNER V. USPS 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s21 

Case: 13-3144 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2013
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF

SRSC AND USBR DRAFT CONRACTS

� 	We need a more specific idea and limit on what charges can be for.  We need to define categories of acceptable Charges.

4
### §346. Proceedings in actions for allotments

The plaintiff shall cause a copy of his petition filed under section 345 of this title, to be served upon the United States attorney in the district wherein suit is brought, and shall mail a copy of same, by registered letter, to the Attorney General of the United States, and shall thereupon cause to be filed with the clerk of the court wherein suit is instituted an affidavit of such service and the mailing of such letter. It shall be the duty of the United States attorney upon whom service of petition is made as aforesaid to appear and defend the interests of the Government in the suit, and within sixty days after the service of petition upon him, unless the time should be extended by order of the court made in the case to file a plea, answer, or demurrer on the part of the Government, and to file a notice of any counterclaim, set-off, claim for damages, or other demand or defense whatsoever of the Government in the premises: Provided, That should the United States attorney neglect or refuse to file the plea, answer, demurrer, or defense, as required, the plaintiff may proceed with the case under such rules as the court may adopt in the premises; but the plaintiff shall not have judgment or decree for his claim, or any part thereof, unless he shall establish the same by proof satisfactory to the court.

(Feb. 6, 1901, ch. 217, §2, 31 Stat. 760; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 909.)

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

#### Change of Name

"United States attorney" substituted in text for "district attorney of the United States" on authority of act June 25, 1948. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
PUBLIC LAW 108–467—DEC. 21, 2004 118 STAT. 3889

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3884:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–557 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

July 21, considered and passed House.

Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–467

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 615

East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Hipolito F. Garcia Federal

Building and United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building and United States courthouse located

at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building and

United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

to be a reference to the ‘‘Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

Approved December 21, 2004.

Dec. 21, 2004

[H.R. 3884]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-13T07:59:51-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### §304b. Deposits of funds of students and student activity associations in Indian schools

The Secretary of the Interior may authorize officials or employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to accept and to disburse deposits of funds of students and student activity associations in schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in accordance with the purposes of such deposits. Such deposits and disbursements shall be accounted for under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

(Pub. L. 86–16, Apr. 27, 1959, 73 Stat. 20.)
### Subpart D—Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec.
1286.
Tax treatment of stripped bonds.
1287.
Denial of capital gain treatment for gains on certain obligations not in registered form.
1288.
Treatment of original issue discount on tax-exempt obligations.
#### Hannah Leszynsky and Another, Respondents, v. Virginia Pernet Lawrence, as Executrix, etc., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ.
### §1914. Petition to court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action upon showing of certain violations

Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed, and the Indian child's tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.

(Pub. L. 95–608, title I, §104, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3072.)
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of microHelix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James T. Quist, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, Patricia J. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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





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





Date:  March
      31, 2010/s/
      James T. Quist
                            
                            /s/ Patricia J. BrownJames
      T. Quist
                            
                            Patricia J. BrownChief
      Executive Officer
                            
                            Chief Financial
  Officer
### §743. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1207, §3, 68 Stat. 1100, which related to membership roll, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
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 HIGH

 252

 200

 198

 217

 243

 256

 269

 280

 250

 289

 313

 285

 252

 318

 326

 319

 266

 239

 205

 212

 297

 347

 394

 424

 312

 287

 255

 236

 234

 234

 198

 188

 184

 185

 196

 192

 191

 192

 195

 196

 197

 199

 203

 205

 206

 205

 203

 201

 200

 198

 194

 189

 176

 174

 176

 180

 193

 193

 193

 195

 187

 177

 194

 187

 193

 199

 200

 203

 206

 209

 207

 222

 226

 217

 216

 232

 221

 219

 211

 206

 202

 199

 208

 212

 215

 233

 197

 215

 206

 204

 201

 194

 185

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 3, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER