alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of the Interior 

BU REAU OF RECLAMATION 

Mid-Pacific Regiona l Officc 

2800 COllage Way 

Sacramcnto. CA 95825-1898 

IN REl'l Y REFER TO: 

MP-3400 

WTR-I.IO 

MAR 3 2015 

To: All Central Valley Project Water Contractors 

Subject: 2015 Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Rates 

Dear Water Contractor: 

The Bureau of Reclamation posted the final 20 15 CVP water rates to the Reclamation website, 

www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwaterrates/ratebooks/index.html. on December 28, 20 14. The CVP water 

rates that were posted are calculated using a five year average of historical deliveries as the basis 

for estimating the operation and maintenance (O&M) component of the rate. The 20 IS water 

year is expected to be a critically dry year. As of the date of this letter, Reclamation expects that 

the water deliveries for 2015 will be significantly less than the five year historical average that is 

used in the water rate calculation. The lower than average water deliveries will result in an 

underestimated O&M component orthe water rate. For the 20 15 water year, the water rate 

posted could potentially be underestimated by as much as $79 per acre foot for irri gation water 

and $14 per acre foot for Municipal and Industrial water. 

The purpose of this letter is only to notify water contractors of the underestimated 20 15 water 

rate, and to provide advance notice of the potential for O&M deficits to occur when the 20 15 

Annual Contractor Accountings are calculated in August 20 16. This letter is for informational 

purposes only. 

Additionally, it is strongly encouraged that contractors consider the underestimated O&M when 

selling and transferring water to other water contractors to ensure that enough revenue is 

received to pay for the 2015 allocation of CVP O&M costs. 

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Autumn Wolfe, Ratesetting Manager, at 

awolfe@usbr. gov, or 916-978-539 1, or for TTY access call the Federal Relay Service at 

800-877-8339. 

Sincerely, 

Rodney Whitfield 

Financial Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION 

Case No. 20-21885-CIV COOKE/GOODMAN

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties' Stipulation of Final Dismissal with 

Prejudice (ECF No. 69). The Court being fully advised that counsel for the parties agree to 

the form and entry of this Order of Final Dismissal with Prejudice, it is ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED as follows: 

(i) The above-styled action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

(ii) Each party shall bear their own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses.

(iii) Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

(iv) Pursuant to the parties’ request and Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 

1272 (11th Cir. 2012), this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the 

Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release for a period of 120 days.

(v) The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of December

2021. 

Copies furnished to: 

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record 

Case 1:20-cv-21885-MGC Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2021 Page 1 of 1
### §4423. Inspection of books

Notwithstanding section 7605(b), the books of account of any person liable for tax under this chapter may be examined and inspected as frequently as may be needful to the enforcement of this chapter.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 528.)
#### § 402.10 Patent.

When a purchaser has complied fully with the provisions of his contract and with the applicable provisions of law, including the regulations in this subpart, the Commissioner shall issue to the purchaser a final receipt so stating. The receipt shall show any liens that, under the reclamation laws, must be indicated in the final certificate and patent and shall state the statutory authority for such liens. The receipt shall be submitted to the Manager of the appropriate land office of the Bureau of Land Management and the Manager shall prepare a final certificate for the issuance of patent to the purchaser. The Manager shall show in the final certificate the above-mentioned reclamation liens and any reservations that are required by law to be made on the patent.
(No. 715

Claimant awarded $1,122.58.)

#### George C. Peterson Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Franchise *tax*— when *refund may he awarded.*This case is controlled by the decision of the court in *Herenden Milling Co.*v. *State, supra.*

John A. Bussian, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of certain portions of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922; total excess tax paid amounting to $1,122.58.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $1,122.58.
#### Solomon Stern v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 4.335 Preparation and transmittal of record by official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. ( a ) Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of appeal, or upon notice from the Board, the official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs whose decision is appealed shall assemble and transmit the record to the Board. The record on appeal shall include, without limitation, copies of transcripts of testimony taken; all original documents, petitions, or applications by which the proceeding was initiated; all supplemental documents which set forth claims of interested parties; and all documents upon which all previous decisions were based.
( b ) The administrative record shall include a Table of Contents noting, at a minimum, inclusion of the following: ( 1 ) The decision appealed from;
( 2 ) The notice of appeal or copy thereof; and
( 3 ) Certification that the record contains all information and documents utilized by the deciding official in rendering the decision appealed.
( c ) If the deciding official receives notification that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs has decided to review the appeal before the administrative record is transmitted to the Board, the administrative record shall be forwarded to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs rather than to the Board.
#### Rosa Chronik, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### General Exchange Insurance Corporation, Respondent, v. Rose Kweskin, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

All concur.
Exhibit 10.13

 

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL

 

I –                       THE PARTIES

 

1.1                     Lessor:

 

D GAYRİMENKUL YATIRIMLARI VE TİCARET A.Ş.

 

Burhaniye Mahallesi, Kısıklı Caddesi No:65 Üsküdar — İstanbul

 

1.2                     Lessee:

 

D-MARKET ELEKTRONİK HİZMETLER VE TİCARET A.Ş.

 

Kuştepe Mah, Mecidiyeköy Yolu Cad, No: 12, K:2 Şişli - İstanbul

 

2-                           SUBJECT OF THE PROTOCOL:

 

This Additional Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the “Protocol”) has been issued regarding the partial termination of the Lease Agreement concluded between the parties on 24.12.2014 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the ‘‘Agreement’’)  Regarding the lease of the property as an office which is located in the 2nd Tower’s block structure (office floors) of the premises named registered in Istanbul Province, Şişli District, Mecidiyeköy, Sheet 298, Block 2524 and Parcel 3 and of which address is at Mecidiyeköy Mah. Şişli, İstanbul.

 

3-                           The Parties have agreed to arrange the agreement within the scope specified below, if the provisions of the existing Lease Agreement signed between them do not affect the validity of the provisions and these provisions remain valid.

 

4-                           The part of the lease agreement and additional protocols signed between the parties regarding the area of 26th floor 613 m2 has been terminated as of 15.06.2019 with the mutual agreement of the parties, and the agreement will continue on the floors and areas detailed below. The lessee’s rental fee, common expenses and usage expenses of the lessee shall continue to be paid within the scope of the provisions of the agreement on the following square meters as of 15.06.2019.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
2nd Floor
    	
 
    	
3rd Floor
    	
 
    	
4th Floor
    	
 
    	
5th Floor
    	
 
    	
26th Floor
    	
 
    	
TOTAL
    
	
Area
    	
 
    	
2010 m2
    	
 
    	
1959 m2
    	
 
    	
1504 m2
    	
 
    	
1401 m2
    	
 
    	
100 m2
    	
 
    	
6974 m2
    


 

5-                           The Parties have released each other in a public and irrevocable manner in relation to the mutually and voluntarily terminated part of the Lease Agreement with this protocol.

 

6-                           This Protocol issued in two copies and the Lessor will pay the Stamp Duty and the entire amount will be invoiced to the Lessee. The Lessee shall pay the said amount to the Lessor’s bank account within 5 days from the invoice date.

 

The Protocol consisting of 6 (six) articles was issued and signed by the Parties on 15/06/2019.

 

	
Lessee
    	
Lessor
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
D-Market Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret A.Ş.
    	
D Gayrimenkul Yatırımları ve Ticaret A.Ş.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
(stamp and   signature)
    	
(stamp and   signature)
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

 344

 350

 359

 372

 371

 374

 378

 379

 380

 381

 386

 377

 386

 408

 399

 399

 394

 390

 393

 391

 393

 404

 405

 395

 390

 395

 395

 397

 401

 404

 409

 322

 330

 338

 343

 347

 348

 353

 356

 359

 361

 362

 363

 365

 370

 378

 379

 377

 375

 374

 372

 372

 372

 373

 372

 371

 371

 373

 375

 374

 372

 195

 330

 339

 345

 350

 355

 357

 360

 364

 365

 365

 367

 368

 371

 381

 385

 385

 383

 382

 382

 381

 379

 381

 382

 381

 380

 380

 381

 384

 382

 385

 363

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-21773-CIV-MORENO

GUSTAVO PEREZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLORIDA BEAUTY FLORA, INC., a Florida 

for Profit Corporation, RONEN KOUBI, an 

individual, and RALPH MILMAN, an 

individual,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary 

Judgment (D.E. 25), filed on January 11, 2021. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and 

Recommendation (D.E. 74) on March 24, 2021. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record. 

The Court has made a de novo review of the issues that the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation present, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated in open court at the April 20, 2021 calendar call, 

United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and Recommendation is 

AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation 

are OVERRULED. Accordingly, it is

ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd of April 2021.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-21773-FAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

Copies furnished to: United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-21773-FAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2021 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135824 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135824 

 COA: 280905 

Ingham CC: 05-000471-FH

DAVID D. ASLANI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Rucker *v.*The State.

November 18, 1910.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Meadow. Franklin superior court. June 14, 1910.

*W. R. Little*and *A. G. & Julian McCurry,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. A. Hall, attorney-general, Clifford Walker, solicitor-general,*and *J. H. Skelton,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. Where a person was on trial under an indictment for murder, a correct charge on the law of manslaughter, even though not authorized by the evidence, would not be cause for the grant of a - new trial, where the defendant was convicted of the higher offense of murder. *Golatt*v. *State,*130 *Ga.*18 (60 S. E. 107); Joiner *v. State,*129 *Ga.*295 (58 S. E. 859).

2. Certain portions of the charge excepted to on 'the ground that they • were confusing and not clear, explicit, and correct statements of the law, while in a sense somewhat confused, were not of such character as to require the grant of a new trial.

3. On the trial the accused put his character for peaceableness in issue; and it was competent for the State, on cross-examination of a witness introduced by the accused' and testifying to hjs character for peaceableness, to elicit from the witness that the accused had at a given time and place engaged in a difficulty with a named party, and on that occasion had shot him.

4. While in a proper ease, on a trial of.one indicted for murder, sections 70, 71, arid 73 of the Penal .Code may all three be given in charge, yet instructions as to the separate branches of the law of justifiable homicide should' not be so giyen as to confuse the different defenses which may arise under those sections, and apparently to limit, by the terms of section 73, the defenses provided by sections 70 and 71. *Pryer*v. *State,*128 *Ga.*28 (57 S. E. 93). In the case now under consideration the Justices are evenly divided as to whether the charge confuses the. different defenses referred to and so applies section 73 as to cause it apparently to limit sections 70 and' 71; and upon the exceptions to the charge as embraced in the ninth and eleventh amended grounds of the motion for new trial, the judgment will be affirmed by operation of law.

5. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. .

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 418.18 Diversions at Derby Dam. ( a ) Diversions of Truckee River water at Derby Dam must be managed to maintain minimum terminal flow to Lahontan Reservoir or the Carson River except where this part specifically permits diversions.
( b ) Diversions to the Truckee Canal must be managed to achieve an average terminal flow of 20 cfs or less during times when diversions to Lahontan Reservoir are not allowed (the flows must be averaged over the total time diversions are not allowed in that calendar year; i.e., if flows are not allowed in July and August and then are allowed in September then not allowed in October and November, the average flow will be averaged over the four months of July, August, October, and November).
( c ) The Bureau will work cooperatively with the District on monitoring the flows at the USGS gage on the Truckee Canal near Hazen to determine if and when flows are in excess of those needed in accord with this part and bringing the flows back into compliance when excessive.
( d ) Increases in canal diversions which would reduce Truckee River flows below Derby Dam by more than 20 percent in a 24-hour period will not be allowed when Truckee River flow, as measured by the gauge below Derby Dam, is less than or equal to 100 cfs.
( e ) Diversions to the Truckee Canal will be coordinated with releases from Stampede Reservoir and other reservoirs, in cooperation with the Federal Water Master, to minimize fluctuations in the Truckee River below Derby Dam in order to meet annual flow regimes established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for listed species in the lower Truckee River.
§ 4130.6-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements. ( a ) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to an applicant who owns or controls lands that are unfenced and intermingled with public lands in the same allotment when use under such an agreement will be in harmony with the management objectives for the allotment and will be compatible with the existing livestock operations. The agreements shall contain appropriate terms and conditions required under § 4130.3 that ensure the orderly administration of the range, including fair and equitable sharing of the operation and maintenance of range improvements. The term of an exchange-of-use agreement may not exceed the length of the term for any leased lands that are offered in exchange-of-use.
( b ) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to authorize use of public lands to the extent of the livestock carrying capacity of the lands offered in exchange-of-use. No fee shall be charged for this grazing use.
[45 FR 47105, July 11, 1980, as amended at 49 FR 6453, Feb. 21, 1984; 53 FR 10234, Mar. 29, 1988. Redesignated at 60 FR 9965, Feb. 22, 1995, and amended at 60 FR 9967, Feb. 22, 1995]
Exhibit
32.1







CERTIFICATION
OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002












I,
James Wei, Chief Executive Officer of China YouTV Corp.,
certify  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350 as enacted by Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended June 30, 2008 (the
"Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China YouTV
Corp.






China
      YouTV CorporationOctober
      3, 2008
            By:
            /s/ James
      WeiJames
      WeiChief
      Executive Officer





A
signed  original of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within
the  electronic  version of this
written  statement required by Section 906, has been provided to China
YouTV Corp. and will be  retained  by  China YouTV
Corp.  and  furnished  to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

_____________________

No. 16

- 1285

IN RE: RICHARD D. CRAWFORD

Debtor,

__________________

PREMIER CAPITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

RICHARD D. CRAWFORD,

Defendant, Appellant.

__________________

Before

Thompson and Barron, Circuit Judges

, and McConnell, * District Judge

.

__________________

ORDER OF COURT

Entered: October 25 , 2016

The October 24, 2016 opinion of this court is withdrawn as it issued in error, and the

judgment of even date is vacated.

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc:

Hon. Leo T. Sorokin

Robert M. Farrell, Clerk, United States District Court fo r the District of Massachusetts

Mark S. Furman

Emily Clair Shanahan

John David Finnegan

Thomas H. Curran

Peter Antonelli

Douglass C. Lawrence

* Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
#### Stewart *v.*Smith *et al.*

November 18, 1910.

Processioning. Before Judge Meadow. Taliaferro superior court. June 5, 1910,

*Hawes Cloud,*for plaintiff in error. *S. II. Sibley,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where, upon the trial of the issue formed by a protest to • the return of procéssioners who marked a disputed land-line, one contention was that the line marked by the procéssioners was fixed by adverse possession under the Civil Code, § 3248, which declares that “where actual possession has been had, under .a claim of right, for more than seven years, such claim shall be respected, and the lines so marked as *not to*interfere with such possession,” there was no error in refusing to charge what constitutes constructive possession of land, in connection with the law of prescription, as defined by the Civil Code, § 3586.

2. When considered in connection with the entire charge, none of the excerpts therefrom on which errors were assigned were subject to the criticisms made upon them, so as to require a new trial.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
(No. 903

Claimant awarded $4,273.20.)

#### Edward O’Callaghan and Henry O’Callaghan, Partners, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 26, 1925.*

*Contract*— when *State liable.*Where a contract has been made between claimant and the State for certain work, and the contract is performed by claimant, according to its term, and the contract price is paid, but during the progress of the work the State through its authorized agent orders certain specific work to be performed not stipulated in the contract and such additional work is performed and material furnished for same, claimant is entitled to compensation for such additional material furnished and work performed.

Sims, Welch, Godman & Stransky, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimants, Edward O’Callaghan and Henry O’Callaghan, partners, doing business under firm name and style of O ’Cal*207laghan Brothers, claim $7,192.30 as disclosed by the statement of their claim, and as shown by the evidence.

The claimants are plumbers and contractors, and as such, on to-wit: the 20th day of November, A. D. 1922, entered into a contract with the State of Illinois by its proper officers to do certain work, to-wit: Plumbing for a building shown as the Research and Educational Hospital of the State of Illinois, in Chicago, Illinois, under a contract of $145,600.00. The contract was completed and said contract price paid. However during the progress of the work, the State by its said duly authorized agents ordered other certain specific work performed in addition to that stipulated in the contract, and materials also to be furnished and added by claimants which they did as directed, and for which they charge the State the sum of $7,192.30. This bill was presented to the State’s building-department and upon an investigation and analysis of same by the proper officers of said department, they admitted the correctness of the claim, less $2,919.10, and agreed that the State should pay them the sum of $4,273.20.

The Attorney General has investigated the matter also and consents to allowance of said last named sum. From the weight of the evidence in the case it seems that claimants are entitled to said sum last aforesaid. The court accordingly awards the claimants the sum of $4,273.20.