alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|Texas - RRC District 1 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                             
|Texas - RRC District 1 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 2      | 8      | 11     | 18     | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOE LEE THOMPSON

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 2400

TOYOSITY, LLC

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 13, 2016

Non

- Final Appeal from the

Circuit Court for Orange County, Lisa T. Munyon , Judge.

Joe Lee Thompson

, Merritt Island

, pro se

.

Jason Zimmerman and Joshua Bachman, of GrayRobinson, P.A.

, Orlando , for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

SAWAYA

, ORFINGER

, and COHEN , J

. J., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 30, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00467

- CV

In the Interest of N. M. K. T., Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF CONCHO COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AN D GOODWIN

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 14, 2014

. Appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to thi s appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-20]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Oakley, KS.

# DATES:

The direct final rule published at 65 FR 43683 is effective on 0901 UTC, November 30, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 14, 2000 (65 FR 43683). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on November 30, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO on September 12, 2000.

Richard L. Day,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 00-24488  Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

YASSER ANAYA , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2390

[ February 8, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 0 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael I. Rothschild

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 02

- 21296CF10A

.

Yasser Anaya

, Bonifay, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

D AMOORGIAN , C IKLIN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Siliconix incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William M. Clancy, Principal Accounting 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. |

 

| /s/ WILLIAM M. CLANCY        |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   |
| William M. Clancy            |   |
| Principal Accounting Officer |   |
| May 10, 2005                 |   |
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Paragon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
J. Semanick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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



                            /s/ Ronald J. Semanick
                            --------------------------------------------------
                            Ronald J. Semanick
                            Chief Financial Officer and Vice President - Finance
                              and Treasurer
                            May 12, 2006
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC ) 

### PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC., ) Complainant ) )

**~** 

## ) ) 

### CITY OF RENTON, ) Respondent )
ORDER FAA Docket No. 16

- 15

- 03

On April 23, 2015, Complainant, Pro-Flight Aviation, filed a Motion under 14 CFR 

### § 16.19(e), requesting a 30-day extension oftime to file its answer to the Respondent' s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Complainant advised that additional time is needed to appropriately respond to a number ofissues in the Respondent's 46-page Motion for Summary Judgment, which was fi led on Apr il 17, 2015. The Complainant also stated that the Respondent does not oppose an extension. Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. See Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airports (Retrospective Regulatory Review) Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 56135 (Sept. 12, 2013) ; Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). Parties may file a written motion for an extension of time. 14 CFR 

### § 6.19( e). The Director may issue an order extending any time period prescribed where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. 14 CFR 

### § 16.11(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Complainant is hereby granted an extension oftime to submit an answer to the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Complainant's answer is now due on June 4 , 2015.

Director, Office ofAirport

Compliance and Management AnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


### I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 

# 1

**20** 15 , I caused to be emailed and placed in the United States mail (first class, post ge paid) or personally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing ORDER addressed to: Complainant Bernard A. Paholke Vice President PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. 750 W
. Perimeter Rd. Unit 1 Renton, WA 98057 proflightaviationinc@yahoo.com Counsel for Respondent Zanetta 

### L. Font es Senior Assistant City Attorney CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady Way Renton , WA 98057 zfontes@ rentonwa.gov Hand-Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysi s (AC0-100)



# ~tv~ Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. EC99-81-004 and MG00-6-000]

Take notice that on September 1, 2000, Dominion Resources, Inc. (Dominion) and Consolidated Natural Gas Company (CNG) (together, Applicants) filed a compliance filing in compliance with (1) the Commission's May 17, 2000, “Order on Compliance Filing” which imposed conditions on the Commission's approval of the merger of Dominion and CNG, and (2) the Commission's related “Order on Standards of Conduct” for Applicants, which was also issued on May 17, 2000.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before October 2, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-24650 Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Blaine Bailey, Chief Financial Officer of Jet Gold Corp (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended August 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: April 17, 2008



/s/  Blaine Bailey

Blaine Bailey,

Chief Financial Officer













#
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MUHAMMAD HARGROVE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 390 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
OFFICEOFTHEA-ITORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS

RonorrrbleCharles Criairal Liatriat Corslouna, xerao
Dear Sir: **T. lianistcr**  **Attornay**

6e are in reoelpt of In you roguest our opinion **a8** violation **of A:tiole**  **433 of**  co6neonsahool district to em 

### wire0r 6 6mi who ia ths bro

Of tUI$sohcwl di6t shall appoint or person **redated** vi third degree by o voting or to 6Iiy tiGIIOf 8~0 or the **trusteaswof a**  

### 8sa teoahsr)the e .ofone of the trueteee. ride6 that no ofiloer UbdiYiSiOn Of thi6 Stat6 0 any pO6ftiOn Or Ssy artinity or rithin the 80 appoint&g or 60 oard when the **eorapensa** for ou.tOS or Srom prrblia osver, and **Article** 433, Pens1 cd forth above shall apply

on, tberQrore, prssented 16whether the 8 **related** to th6 truate6~ within the y or within the third 

### degreeby cronpanXIhioaaae of Cbinn v6. state, 86 Z&%. inity is that tie wbieh arises in kioneequar:oe

### ornarr betwixt one of the rmrrisd pair atxdthe **bloo4** relations of the other; . . . there is no at'linitybetween the hu6bandv6 **brother** and the wife*s siEtar,whloh is **aalhd** by the dOOtGr6 6ffinita6 aftinitati5, **baoauna theD**  the CoIUleeti@l¶ 16 fOr6Bd, not between one of the spouoes and the **klnsaren of**  **the** othsr, but between the irlnemn or both."eon, Churles '1.iranister,Page 2

'-MS ~86 quote& rilthapproval in the ca6e of Seabrook v. i"lrstIvstlGnslirankGf Port Lavaca, 171 Z. !-i. 247, wherein it ras held 

### thata district judgewhose wife and the wife 

### Ofone v,. Noble were cousins was noterelated to kr.~Nobl% by affinity. Blood relations cf the husband are not related to the blood relations of the wife. 2 c. J. 370. Cur answ%r to yr,urquestion 16 that said Artlola 432 wculd not be violated by the employment which you mention.
Yours very truly

APPROVED JUL 14, 1939 ATTORNEY CE.?NERAL OF TEXAS

By LdG' Glenn R. LOW16

AESiEtant
#### COOK v. SLOAN’S MOVING & STORAGE CO.

No. 28799.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 20, 1954.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1954.

*363Sievers, Reagan & Schwartz, St. Louis, for appellant.

Joseph C. Miller, St. Louis, for respondent.

WOLFE, Commissioner.

This is an action to recover the value of. personal property belonging to the plaintiff. ‘ The property was destroyed while stored in the warehouse of the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The petition of the plaintiff pleads that the plaintiff’s property was destroyed through th’e negligence and carelessness of the defendant with no specification of the negligence charged.

The pertinent facts of the case are that the plaintiff stored some household and per-' sonal property with defendant warehouse company and the warehouse and the property stored in it were destroyed by fire.

The case was submitted by an instruction on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, informing the jury that if the plaintiff’s goods were destroyed while in the defendant’s possession then such facts were sufficient to warrant a finding that the defendant was negligent.

This is the third of some very recent cases that have arisen out of two warehouse fires. The first of these is Gutknecht v. Wagner Bros. Moving & Storage Co., Mo.App., 266 S.W .2d 19, and the second is Fry v. Wagner Bros. Moving & Storage Company, Mo.App., 267 S.W.2d 359. The sole question before us in both the Gut-knecht and Fry cases had to do with the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to a situation where the plaintiff’s property had been destroyed by fir'e in the warehouse of the- defendant. The opinions deal at length with' the subject and both hold that a fire of unknown origin does not give rise to' the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, following the cases of Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. A. Reich & Sons, Mo.Sup., 250 S.W. 2d 692; Kapros v. Pierce Oil Corp., 324 Mo. 992, 25 S.W.2d *777,*78 A.L.R. 722; and Hendricks v. Weaver, Mo.Sup., 183 S.W.2d 74.

It is further pointed out in the Gutknecht and Fry cases.that the plaintiff in a negligence action is not aided by Section 406.090' RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which.is a part of the Warehouse Receipt Act' and has to do with a contract of bailment and not actions of negligence.

For the reasons stated, the court erred in submitting the case to the jury upon the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, and it is the recommendation of the Commissioner that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of WOLFE, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. -

The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly reversed and the cause reminded.

ANDERSON, P. J„ BENNICK, J., and HOLMAN, Special Judge, concur.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Mississippi (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Mississippi (with State Offshore) Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | 49     | 68    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 38     | 71     | 42     | 68     | 79     | 87     | 79     | 35     | 126    | 117   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 94     | 90     | 82     | 73     | 85     | 38     | 36     | 34     | 35     | 33    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 21     | 28     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023