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



Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Gary C. Huber, the Chief Financial Officer of Canyon Resources Corporation
(the Company), hereby 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 Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003, (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 14, 2003
    
    /s/ Gary C. HuberGary C. Huber
Chief Financial Officer
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 HIGH

 381

 384

 373

 370

 357

 362

 367

 364

 347

 347

 344

 349

 358

 368

 357

 356

 350

 337

 345

 346

 359

 332

 343

 337

 326

 320

 338

 338

 315

 308

 353

 352

 351

 347

 344

 339

 338

 334

 310

 331

 327

 325

 320

 325

 329

 325

 322

 320

 319

 313

 311

 309

 305

 302

 296

 294

 290

 287

 286

 286

 363

 361

 359

 355

 350

 347

 347

 346

 335

 337

 332

 330

 331

 337

 336

 334

 330

 326

 327

 326

 324

 315

 319

 315

 310

 305

 304

 303

 299

 297

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 9, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
§ 3597.2 Audits. ( a ) An audit of the operator's/lessee's accounts and books may be made or directed by the Minerals Management Service in accordance with the provisions of Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
( b ) An audit of the operator's/lessee's accounts and production records by the service may be requested by the authorized officer if, during the process of verification of production, it is determined that an irregularity exists between reported production and production calculated by the authorized officer. Such audits shall be requested when the irregularity cannot be resolved between the operator/lessee and the authorized officer.
·|}ÿ63

FRIANT-KERN CANAL

·|}ÿ180

T15S R24E

T15S R25E

T14S R24E T14S R25E

16

10 11

12 7

8 9

3

2

1

6

5 4

34 35

36

31

33

32

27

26

25

30 29

28

22 23

24 19 20 21

15 14 13 18 17 16

TTUULLAARR EE CCOO

FFRREESSNNOO CCOO

Hills Valley I.D.

Contract No. 14-06-200-8466A-LTR1

EXHIBIT A

District Boundary

Contractor's Service Area (Irrigation Only)

Contractor's Service Area (Irrigation and M&I)

"

0 0.5 1

Miles 1785-202-2

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

Date: October 21, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\hills_valley\hills_valley.mxd

Project water delivered from the Friant Division
HRP ((b)(1) “other”) FY13 Projects, 9/21/2016

Project Proposed Activity Funding

A-2

Acquisition and Preservation 

of the Richvale Vernal Pools 

in Butte County

Butte County RCD

Fee title acquisition of the 75.9-acre 

Richvale property to protect vernal pool 

habitat to benefit Greene’s tuctoria, 

vernal pool fairy shrimp, and giant 

garter snake in Butte County.

**$14,817

(Note: The 

acquisition could 

not be completed 

so the project 

was terminated. 

Of the $329,240 

obligated, 

$14,817 was 

spent by BCRCD 

on the project. 

The remaining 

$314,423 was 

deob’d and 

reob’d [see 

below]).

S-4

Population Genetic 

Structure of the Riparian 

Brush Rabbit: Using 

Multiple Marker Systems to 

Gain Insight into Historic 

and Ongoing Genetic 

Connectivity

ESRP, CSU, Stanislaus

The main goal of the project is to 

develop the definitive and requisite data 

on population genetic structure to help 

develop and guide management 

options for the riparian brush rabbit 

(RBR) population at Caswell Memorial 

State Park in San Joaquin County.

**$112,852

F-1

Ciervo Hills Giant Kangaroo 

Rat Habitat Protection 

Project – Martin Acquisition 

Phase II

BLM, Hollister

Fee title acquisition of 1,522 acres on 

five parcels of the Martin Ranch to 

promote protection of giant kangaroo 

rat habitat in the central Ciervo Hills 

(also known as “K-Rat Flat”) as well as 

San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin 

woolly-threads in Fresno County. 

 

**$86,057

*$493,380

 $579,437

(Note: The 

CVPCP is also 

contributing 

$421,888 for a 

total of 

$1,001,325) 

F-3

Acquisition of Lower Tule 

River Irrigation District 

Isolated Parcels Contiguous 

Fee title acquisition of 118 acres of 

Pixley Irrigation District lands for 

inclusion in the Pixley NWR to benefit 

Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit 

*$48,000

(Note: The 

CVPCP is also 

contributing 

$450,000 for a 
Project Proposed Activity Funding

to Pixley National Wildlife 

Refuge

Pixley NWR

fox, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard in 

Tulare County.

total of 

$498,000)

FY 2013 Allocation 

$1,500,000

BOR

USFWS

+$750,000

+$750,000

Project Costs Total: 

$755,106

BOR

USFWS

-$541,380

-$213,726

Program Administration 

and Overhead Costs

Total: $421,471

BOR

USFWS

-$199,620

-$221,851

FY 2013 Deobligation of 

funds from Acquisition 

and Preservation of the 

Richvale Vernal Pools in 

Butte County project

USFWS (the deob’d funds were then 

reob’d by BOR for the FY 2016-funded 

project entitled Conserving Critical Tiger 

Salamander Habitat in the Dunnigan 

Hills.)

-$314,423

Contracting Costs for 

Pixley NWR Project, 

FY 2012

BOR -$22,000

Deobligation, FY 2009 

Lange’s Metalmark 

Butterfly Captive 

Propagation.

BOR +$13,000

* BOR funded

** USFWS funded
### §2621. Taxable amount in case of taxable distribution

#### (a) In general

For purposes of this chapter, the taxable amount in the case of any taxable distribution shall be—

(1) the value of the property received by the transferee, reduced by

(2) any expense incurred by the transferee in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of the tax imposed by this chapter with respect to such distribution.

#### (b) Payment of GST tax treated as taxable distribution

For purposes of this chapter, if any of the tax imposed by this chapter with respect to any taxable distribution is paid out of the trust, an amount equal to the portion so paid shall be treated as a taxable distribution.

(Added Pub. L. 94–455, title XX, §2006(a), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1887; amended Pub. L. 97–34, title IV, §422(e)(4), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 316; Pub. L. 99–514, title XIV, §1431(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2720.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–514 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to taxable amount in case of a taxable distribution for former provisions which related generally to administration of this chapter. See section 2661 of this title.

1981—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–34 substituted "Section 6166" for "Sections 6166 and 6166A" in heading and "section 6166 (relating to extension of time" for "sections 6166 and 6166A (relating to extensions of time" in text.

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Section applicable to generation-skipping transfers (within the meaning of section 2611 of this title) made after Oct. 22, 1986, except as otherwise provided, see section 1433 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–34 applicable to estates of decedents dying after Dec. 31, 1981, see section 422(f)(1) of Pub. L. 97–34, set out as a note under section 6166 of this title.
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

 2,325.93

 2,329.24

 2,330.10

 2,331.17

 2,332.38

 2,333.00

 2,333.39

 2,333.68

 2,333.92

 2,334.13

 2,334.29

 2,334.44

 2,334.56

 2,334.68

 2,334.82

 2,335.02

 2,335.15

 2,335.24

 2,335.15

 2,335.19

 2,335.26

 2,335.24

 2,335.30

 2,335.24

 2,335.25

 2,335.16

 2,335.10

 2,335.02

 2,334.91

 2,334.79

 2,334.63

 1,790.2

 1,835.2

 1,846.9

 1,861.7

 1,878.4

 1,887.0

 1,892.5

 1,896.5

 1,899.9

 1,902.8

 1,905.1

 1,907.2

 1,908.9

 1,910.6

 1,912.5

 1,915.3

 1,917.2

 1,918.4

 1,917.2

 1,917.7

 1,918.7

 1,918.4

 1,919.3

 1,918.4

 1,918.6

 1,917.3

 1,916.5

 1,915.3

 1,913.8

 1,912.1

 1,909.9

STORAGE

+14.4

+44.9

+11.8

+14.7

+16.8

+8.6

+5.4

+4.1

+3.4

+2.9

+2.2

+2.1

+1.7

+1.7

+2.0

+2.8

+1.8

+1.3

-1.3

+0.6

+1.0

-0.3

+0.8

-0.8

+0.1

-1.3

-0.8

-1.1

-1.5

-1.7

-2.2

CHANGE

7,468

22,866

6,175

7,665

8,503

4,517

2,957

2,249

1,849

1,661

1,469

1,325

1,102

1,070

1,238

1,655

1,119

889

966

1,908

1,493

1,451

2,018

1,286

1,814

1,067

996

938

715

894

706

INFLOW

 220

 219

 210

 195

 43

 169

 202

 202

 151

 165

 336

 246

 248

 220

 242

 230

 176

 244

 1,600

 1,615

 995

 1,581

 1,583

 1,701

 1,743

 1,708

 1,423

 1,508

 1,494

 1,736

 1,831

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 0

 0

 28

 45

 12

 4

 8

 4

 8

 12

 0

 17

 4

 0

 4

 8

 17

 4

 4

 8

 0

 12

 8

 12

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 8

 8

C.F.S.

 .00

 .00

 .07

 .11

 .03

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .03

 .00

 .04

 .01

 .00

 .01

 .02

 .04

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .00

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .02

INCHES

 .39

 2.08

 .09

 .58

 1.70

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .11

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .63

 .86

 .01

 2.00

 .02

 .40

 .82

 .41

 .38

 .14

 .64

 .01

 .00

 .06

 .00

 .06

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2012 TRINITY LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 27, 2013

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +134.1 92,029 24,236 0 3 235 .58 11.39

ACRE-FEET +134,100 182,540 48,072 0 6 466

COMMENTS:

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

(1) EVAPORATION AND PRECIPITATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM STATION AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 48,072

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 6

 48,078

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 11.39

JULY 1, 2012 18.22

 1,775.9

Table 4

(1) (1)
*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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30812

Summary Calendar

 

ALEX LEE HUBBARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SUB SEA INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.,

Defendants,

versus

DAVID W. OESTREICHER, II,

Movant-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT L. HACKETT,

Movant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(91-CV-4022-M)

_________________________________________________________________

March 29, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert L. Hackett, a lawyer representing himself, appeals the

district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses against him.
2

Hackett contends the court erred by denying his continuance motion

and by admitting testimony at the hearing.

We review a continuance-denial for abuse of discretion and

“will not substitute our judgment concerning the necessity of a

continuance for that of the district court unless the complaining

party demonstrates that it was prejudiced by the denial”. See

Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal

quotation marks omitted); Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582,

590-91 n.11 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 976 (1979).

Claiming that the record speaks for itself, Hackett has not stated

any claimed prejudice as a result of the denial. See Streber, 221

F.3d at 736. He has, therefore, not shown abuse of discretion.

See Spinkellink, 578 F.2d at 590-91 n.11.

Concerning the challenged hearing testimony, Hackett has

neither described the testimony nor identified any prejudice or

harm resulting from its admission. Claiming permitting the

testimony violated a district court local rule, Hackett did not

even deem it necessary to include a transcript of the hearing in

the record on appeal. He has totally failed to comply with FED. R.

APP. P. 28(a)(9) (each argument must contain “appellant’s

contentions and the reasons for them” as well as “a concise

statement of the applicable standard of review”). Thus, he has
3

abandoned this issue on appeal. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED
### §1814. Miscellaneous provisions

#### (a) Eligibility of Navajo Tribe

The Navajo Tribe shall not be eligible to participate under the provisions of this subchapter.

#### (b) Discriminatory practices prohibited

(1) The Secretary shall not provide any funds to any institution which denies admission to any Indian student because such individual is not a member of a specific Indian tribe, or which denies admission to any Indian student because such individual is a member of a specific tribe.

(2) The Secretary shall take steps to recover any unexpended and unobligated funds provided under this subchapter held by an institution determined to be in violation of paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 95–471, title I, §114, formerly §113, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1329; renumbered §114, Pub. L. 98–192, §4(a)(1), Dec. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 1336.)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4464

_____________________________
W ILLIE R AY H ARPER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. January 11 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Willie Ray Harper, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
August 27 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF D .M.K, C.A.K, J.J.K. AND J.A.K.,

CHILDREN

NO. 14

- 13

- 00230

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed February 26, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We or der this decision certified below for observance. We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,315,388               1,470,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,622,799               2,783,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                   211,396                 196,756
<INVENTORY>                                    970,580               1,324,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,470,806               5,646,345
<PP&E>                                       1,786,964               1,789,585
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,441,112)             (1,351,218)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,312,437               7,325,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,265,311               3,223,986
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         6,295                   6,285
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,040,831               4,095,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,312,437               7,325,897
<SALES>                                      5,319,367               5,406,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,319,367               6,406,408
<CGS>                                        4,180,455               5,067,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,180,455               5,067,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,243,561               2,434,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (46,763)                   4,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,057,885)             (1,693,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,057,885)             (1,693,326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)                   (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)                   (.27)


</TABLE>
#### Malcolm Ross Matheson, as Substituted Trustee, etc., of Richard J. Stainton, Deceased, Respondent, v. Ottilie E. Mente and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Title Insurance Company of New York and Others, Appellants.

Inasmuch as George P. Stainton, the younger, was not a party to this action, the judgment as entered at Special Term would be no legal bar against him or those claiming under him, and plaintiff would not be protected thereby by acquiescence in the same. The judgment should be modified by providing for a foreclosure and sale for the full amount due thereon, with interest and costs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### §1464. Refunds and credits with respect to withheld tax

Where there has been an overpayment of tax under this chapter, any refund or credit made under chapter 65 shall be made to the withholding agent unless the amount of such tax was actually withheld by the withholding agent.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 360.)
§ 3809.806 Will the State Director review the original BLM decision if I request State Director review? ( a ) The State Director may accept your request and review a decision made under this subpart. The State director will decide within 21 days of a timely filed request whether to accept your request and review the original BLM decision. If the State Director does not make a decision within 21 days on whether to accept your request for review, you should consider your request for State Director review declined, and you may appeal the original BLM decision to OHA.
( b ) The State Director will not begin a review and will end an ongoing review if you or another affected party files an appeal of the original BLM decision with OHA under section § 3809.801 before the State Director issues a decision under this subpart, unless OHA agrees to defer consideration of the appeal pending a State Director decision.
( c ) If you file an appeal with OHA after requesting State Director review, you must notify the State Director who, after receiving your notice, may request OHA to defer considering the appeal.
( d ) If you fail to notify the State Director of your appeal to OHA, any decision issued by the State Director may be voided by a subsequent OHA decision.
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Jerry A. Hurst, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee, and United States of America, Party-in-Interest.

No. 05-2166.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided Feb. 28, 2006.

*166Jerry A. Hurst, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arthur Umayam, Deneen J. Me-lander, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jerry A. Hurst appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint as filed beyond the limitations periods and on res judicata grounds, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Hurst v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,*No. CA-04-1205-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2005 *&*filed Sept. 15, 2005; entered Sept. 16, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Michael Chavers, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59737;

First District (3rd Division)

June 20, 1974.

No appearance for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People.

PER CURIAM.

DEMPSEY, J., took no part.
#### § 3811.2-5 O and C and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands.

Revested Oregon and California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands, located in Oregon, are subject to mining locations in accordance with provisions of subpart 3821 of this chapter.