alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U. S. Energy Information Administration | Drilling Productivity Report

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### Oil production

thousand barrels/day 

### Bakken 0 50 100

Jun

1,074 Mbbl/d Production

from
new wells Legacy

production change Net

change Jul

1,094 Mbbl/d thousand barrels/day 

### Bakken



# +92

- 72 

# +20 Indicated change in oil production (Jul vs. Jun)

0 50 100

Jun

1,262 MMcf/d Production

from
new wells Legacy

production change Net

change Jul

1,285 MMcf/d 

### Indicated change in natural gas production (Jul vs. Jun)

million cubic feet /day 

### Bakken



# +93



# - 70 +23 0 50 100 150 200 250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### new-well oil production per rig
rig count New

- well oil production per rig
barrels/day 

### Bakken Rig count rigs

(80) (70) (60) (50) (40) (30) (20) (10) 0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### Legacy oil production change
thousand barrels/day 

### Bakken

(80) (70) (60) (50) (40) (30) (20) (10) 0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### Legacy gas production change

million cubic feet /day 

### Bakken

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### Bakken Natural gas production

million cubic feet /day 0 50 100 150 200 250

0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 3,600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### new-well gas production per rig

rig count New

- well gas production per rig

thousand cubic feet /day 

### Bakken Rig count rigs drilling data through May projected

production through July 

# June 2014 Drilling Productivity Report

Monthly additions from one average rig July

barrels/day June barrels /day
month over month 

# Oil +5 Gas

thousand cubic feet/day
month over month 

# +6 

# Bakken

million cubic feet/day
month over month 

# 518 July

thousand cubic feet/day June 

# 512 510 505

thousand barrels /day

month over month 

# Oil +20 Gas +23

3
Exhibit 32 - B


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, the  undersigned  officer of Tenet  Information
Services,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies  that the Company's  Annual
Report on Form  10-KSB  for the year ended June 30,  2004 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 30, 2004


/s/ Sara Williams
---------------------------------------
Sara Williams
Treasurer (principal financial officer)


The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2236 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags for toys. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags 

for toys. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON CERTAIN 

4 BAGS FOR TOYS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.78 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain bags for toys) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2236 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### ADA MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GOEHRING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84CA0240.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

May 2, 1985.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1985.

Certiorari Granted Oct. 15, 1985.

Certiorari Dismissed as Improvidently Granted Dec. 6, 1985.

Fischer & Wilmarth, Steven G. Francis, Fort Collins, for plaintiff-appellee.

*1035Dean & Martin, Daniel W. Dean, Fort Collins, for defendant-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

Defendant appeals a trial court judgment which set aside a satisfaction of judgment entered after a sheriffs sale and upheld defendant’s subsequent pledge of stock to secure the same judgment. We affirm.

A default judgment was entered against defendant on plaintiffs complaint. During C.R.C.P. 69(d) proceedings, matters were discussed which gave plaintiffs counsel the impression that defendant owned certain real property. Without further investigation, plaintiffs counsel had the trial court issue a writ of execution on that property. It was levied upon, and plaintiff successfully bid the full amount of its judgment on the property at a sheriff’s sale. The sheriff thereupon issued a receipt which satisfied the judgment.

Subsequently, it became known to plaintiffs counsel that defendant had never held title to the property which had been seized and sold. Plaintiff then initiated new C.R. C.P. 69(d) proceedings during which defendant pledged certain corporate stock he owned to secure payment of the judgment. However, defendant later became aware of the sheriffs sale and contested the validity of the later C.R.C.P. 69(d) proceedings and the security agreement.

Plaintiff filed motions with the trial court to set aside the sheriffs sale and satisfaction of judgment due to fraud and mistake, and to declare the security agreement valid. The court made no ruling on the issue of mistake and concluded there was no fraud, but set aside the sale and satisfaction and declared the security agreement valid.

On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court’s rulings were erroneous because it failed to find fraud or mistake and lacked authority to base its ruling on what appeared to be estoppel principles. We disagree. While the legal basis of the court’s ruling is unclear, the result was correct. *See Klipfel v. Neill,*30 Colo.App. 428, 494 P.2d 115 (1972).

Where property is improperly levied upon, a sheriff’s sale based thereon is void. In such cases, an entry of satisfaction based upon the void sale must be set aside. *See Copeland v. Colorado State Bank,*13 Colo.App. 489, 59 P. 70 (1899).

Here, the court had authority only to levy upon property owned by the judgment debtor, the proceeds of sale to be applied towards satisfaction of judgment. *See*C.R.C.P. 69(f). Since defendant had no title to the property executed upon, all subsequent actions pertaining to that property were void. The later collection proceedings were therefore valid, and the court properly set aside the satisfaction of judgment and upheld the security agreement.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to C.A.R. 38 is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

BERMAN and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Steven DOMINGUE.

No. 87-K-1414.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Domingue, Steven; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR86-1178; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 37809.

Prior report: La.App., 507 So.2d 296.

Denied.
#### Jason J. CHERAMIE and Rebecca J. Cheramie v. Willie J. GUIDRY and Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

No. CA 87 1461.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 22, 1987.

*420Stanley L. Perry, Galliano, for plaintiffs-appellees Jason J. Cheramie and Rebecca J. Cheramie.

Christopher H. Riviere, Porteous, Haink-el, Johnson & Sarpy, Thibodaux, for defendants-appellants Willie J. Guidry and Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Before COVINGTON, C.J., and SAVOIE and LeBLANC, JJ.

COVINGTON, Chief Judge.

Jason and Rebecca Cheramie filed a petition for damages against Willie J. Guidry and Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company. After a trial, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants. Thereafter, defendants filed a timely motion and order for suspensive appeal.

Plaintiffs filed a “Rule to Test Sufficiency, Validity and Authenticity of the Suspen-sive Appeal Bond.” A hearing was held and the trial court rendered judgment as follows:

> IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendants, ... shall file in the suit record in proper form a Power of Attorney authorizing their legal counsel of record, Mr. Christopher H. Riviere, to sign a suspensive appeal bond on their behalf in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 ($350,000.00) Dollars.

> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants file said Power of Attorney within four (4) days, exclusive of legal holidays, of the rendition of this judgment, as provided by Article 5124, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs then filed, in this court, a motion to dismiss defendants’ appeal. Plaintiffs argue defendants have not timely complied with the trial court’s order and therefore we should dismiss defendants’ appeal.

It is well established that the court considering a case on appeal is without jurisdiction to consider the form, substance, or sufficiency of an appeal bond. *Irvine v. Sentry Insurance Co.,*404 So.2d 1352 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981). However, an appellate court does have the authority to determine if what purports to be a bond is in fact a bond, and whether it was timely filed, for only then does its jurisdiction attach. *Guilliot v. City of Kenner,*326 So.2d 359 (La.1976).

Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is based on defendants’ alleged failure to comply with a trial court order concerning the form of the appeal bond. In light of the above jurisprudence, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is properly directed to the trial court. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is denied.

MOTION DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,

Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of PECO II, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  | /s/ James L. Green                   
|                      |  | James L. Green                       
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.58 MB)
 
 NASIC Threat Visualization
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin ROSE.

No. 87-KH-0335.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1987.

In re Rose, Calvin; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 307-197.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5938]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, 
Liquidator, or Manager

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the 
following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as 
indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in 
the Federal Register) may be relied upon as ``of record'' notice that 
the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the 
statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal 
Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the 
identification of any institutions which have been placed in 
liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of 
Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Dated: March 5, 2012.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pamela Johnson,
Regulatory Editing Specialist.

                                           Institutions in Liquidation
                                             [In alphabetical order]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Date
           FDIC Ref. No.                    Bank Name                 City                State         closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10428..............................  Global Commerce Bank..  Doraville.............  GA.............   3/2/2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-5938 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duane Leroy MAIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84CA0384.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

May 9, 1985.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1985. Certiorari Denied Sept. 23, 1985.

*1024Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., John Milton Hutchins, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Claire Levy, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for defendant-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

Defendant, Duane Maire, appeals his conviction of vehicular homicide while under the influence of an intoxicant, claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury his tendered instruction on “supervening cause.” We affirm.

The charges in this case arose out of a collision that occurred when the defendant’s truck ran over'a person standing by the roadside. The decedent, Steve Mor-ford, was standing just off the roadway speaking to a friend in a car parked on the shoulder. Both Morford and his friend saw a truck approaching that was out of control. When it appeared that the truck was going to hit the car, Morford started running in front of his friend’s car in order to escape the truck. Although Morford ran down into the ditch away from the roadway, the truck struck him.

Defendant argues that because he could not reasonably foresee Morford’s reaction, it constituted a “supervening cause” releasing defendant from criminal responsibility. This argument is without merit.

Since vehicular homicide is a strict liability crime, § 18 — 3—106(l)(b), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), the contributory negligence of the victim is not a defense. *See*Wharton, *Criminal Law*§ 47 (14th ed.1978). Although evidence of a victim’s conduct is admissible when it is relevant to the issue of causation, where, as here, the evidence does not justify the interpretation that the conduct was other than contributory negligence, an instruction on independent intervening cause is not required. *See People v. Dunhill,*40 Colo.App. 137, 570 P.2d 1097.(1977).

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and METZGER, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00566

- CV
Pension Advisory Group, Inc. and Paul D. Hinson v. Fidelity Security Life Insurance Co.
On Appeal from the 343rd District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Cause No. A

- 12

- 0179

- CV

- C

JUDGMENT THE THI RTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART , and the case should be REMANDED to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial cou rt AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant and against a ppell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observa nce. September 30, 2016
Exhibit 10.14
 EXECUTION COPY
  
 
   Loan Agreement Borrower Borrowers Obligor Obligors Lender Agent Initial Lender
 Section 8.01(m) Schedule 8.01(m) Section 8.01(m)
 Schedule I Extension Period Section 8.01(m) Section 8.01(m)
 1




---



##### 



Section 8.01(m)
 Section 2.05 Section 2.08(c)
 (a)
    
    payment of interest in the amount of $193,466.14 owed in
conjunction with a principal paydown in the amount of $190,584,034.70 (due July
8, 2008 and paid July 14, 2008); and(b)
    
    payment of principal associated with asset sales in the amount
of $11,083,493 (due July 15, 2008 and paid July 22, 2008).
    2




---



##### 



Very truly yours,
GMAC LLC, as Lender AgentBy
    /s/ David C. WalkerName:
    David C. WalkerTitle:
    Group Vice President & Treasurer GMAC LLC, as LenderBy
    /s/ David C. WalkerName:
    David C. WalkerTitle:
    Group Vice President & Treasurer




---



##### 



Acknowledged and Agreed the date first written above:
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC, as borrowerBy
    /s/ John M. PetersonName:
    John M. PetersonTitle:
    Treasurer GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, as borrowerBy
    /s/ John M. PetersonName:
    John M. PetersonTitle:
    Assistant Treasurer




---



##### 



Post-Closing Requirement
    
    Extension Period End DateA. Within 30 days of the Closing Date, the
Brazilian Security Documents.
    
    August 25, 2008B. Within 40 days of the Closing Date, the
Chilean Security Documents.
    
    August 25, 2008D. Within 25 days of the Closing Date, the
Canadian Custodial Agreement.
    
    August 15, 2008E. Within 25 days of the Closing Date, a share
charge executed by RFC and the First Priority
Collateral Agent with respect to GMAC RFC
Ireland Limited in substantially identical form
to the English Share Charge.
    
    July 7, 2008F. Within 25 days of the Closing Date, a share
charge executed by RFC and the First Priority
Collateral Agent with respect to GHS Global
Relocation UK Limited United Kingdom in
substantially identical form to the English
Share Charge.
    
    July 7, 2008I. Within 25 days of the Closing Date, all
documentation necessary to transfer all REO
Subsidiaries whose equity constitutes Primary
Collateral shall have been executed, delivered
and submitted for recording in the applicable
real estate recording office, together with all
necessary filing fees, taxes and similar
charges.
    
    August 20, 2008
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



|Name of Subsidiary                          |  | Place of Incorporation
|------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|PECO II Global Services, Inc.               |  | Delaware              
|Apex Telecommunications Manufacturing, Inc. |  | New Hampshire         
|PECO Telecommunications LLC(1)              |  | Delaware              
|PECO Powering LLC(2)                        |  | Delaware              
|Telecom Global Services de Mexico           |  | Mexico                



---

|(1) |  | General Partner in PECO II Texas, LP with 1% interest.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | Limited Partner in PECO II Texas, LP with 99% interest.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------