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 8 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                       
|Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2,640  | 5,561  | 6,578  | 7,035 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,892  | 8,887  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1040 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2011-CE-029-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 NO COMMENTS RECEIVED – If this box is checked, no signatures are required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We  consent  to  the  references  to  our  firm  under  the captions  "Financial
Highlights"  in  the Prospectus  and  "Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm," and  "Financial Statements"  in  the  Statement of Additional Information
and to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated February 25, 2014,
on the  financial statements and financial highlights of Pioneer Fund
included in the Annual Report to the Shareowners for the year ended
December 31, 2013 as filed with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission in
Post-Effective Amendment Number 91  to  the Registration Statement (Form N-1A,
No. 2-25980) of Pioneer Fund.


                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 24, 2014
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Hutson, Nick

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:30 PM

To: 'Frey, Nathan J.'

Cc: Fruh, Steve; Culligan, Kevin; Szabo, Aaron

Subject: Revised 111(b) TSDs and EPA response to comments on DRAFT TSDs

Attachments: 111(b) TSD_Achievability New Steam_FINAL_073115.docx; 111(b) TSD_IRP 

Review_FINAL_073115.docx; 111(b) TSD_ Geographic Availability_FINAL_073115.docx; 

EPA Response to E012866 Comments on 111b TSDs.docx

Nathan, 

Attached are 3 111(b) Technical Support Documents that have been updated in response to suggestions from EO12866 review. I 

have also attached our response to the reviewers’ comments. 

We accepted all requested changes and they were minor; so I did not create a RLSO version. Let me know if you’d like to see the 

changes. 

If you have any questions, let me know. 

Nick 

Nick Hutson, PhD 

Energy Strategies Group 

Office of Air & Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

tel: +1 919 541 2968 

email: hutson.nick@epa.gov
Exhibit 4.385

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF TELECOM, 
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS

 

LICENSE

 

No. 170434 dated February 17, 2019

 

To render

 

data transmission services for voice

 

This license has been granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

“Mobile TeleSystems”

 

Legal Entity (Individual Entrepreneur) 
 Primary State Registration Number 
 (PSRN/OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN/INN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Principal place of business (residence):

 

109147, Moscow, Marksistskaya St., 4

 

The territory of the services is specified in appendix hereto.

 

This license is valid through:

 

February 17, 2024

 

This license is issued based on the decision of the licensing authority - Order No. 816-рчс dated November 30, 2018

 

This license has an appendix as an integral part, which is executed on two sheets

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
#### WELCH v. STATE.

No. 23642.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 23, 1947.

No appearance on appeal for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated. The penalty assessed is a fine of $50.00.

The complaint and information, as well as all other matters of procedure, are in regular form. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

No error appearing in the -record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Louisiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Louisiana Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 480   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 530    | 525    | 584    | 622    | 649    | 534    | 494    | 516    | 484    | 449   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 375    | 414    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### LOCKARD v. LOCKARD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 27, 1951.

Leebern Allen, Campion, for appellant.

J. Douglas Graham, Campton, for ap-pellee.

VAN SANT, Commissioner.

The Chancellor sustained appellee’s motion for an allowance to her for the support and education of the infant children of the parties and entered judgment therefor in the sum of $25.00 per month commencing October 1, 1948, the date on which the motion was filed. Almost two years previous to the filing of the motion, the court had rendered judgment in favor of appellee against appellant for divorce, alimony, and custody of the infant children, but was silent on the issue of maintenance for the children, despite the fact such issue .had been raised by the pleadings.

We adhere to the rule heretofore established that a judgment against a father for the maintenance of his minor children, being a mere determination of the amount of an obligation imposed on him by law, may be rendered retroactive to the time of the commencement of the obligation. Miles v. Miles, 203 Ky. 431, 262 S.W. 576.

 We also have held, without exception, that a judgment wherein a divorce was granted, alimony awarded, and custody of minor children placed with the mother, does not. preclude the mother from instituting or maintaining a subsequent action or motion to require the father of such children to support them. KRS 403.070. Keith v. Keith, 270 Ky. 655, 110 S.W.2d 424 and cases therein cited. Pennington v. Pennington, 294 Ky. 84, 171 S.W.2d 10.

No other question is presented on this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4700 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4700

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

    Mr. Graves of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.

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

SECTION 1. 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.33 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,319  | 1,860  | 2,907  | 283    | 708    | 1,272  | 1,146  | 672    | 940    | 5,964 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,173  | 264    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 6, 2013

h0130

Order 

February 6, 2013

146024

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146024

COA: 301253

Iosco CC: 09-004926-FC

JIMMIE ALLEN NELSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the defendant’s 

remaining issues. Even absent concrete proof of a particular act causing death, the 

circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient, when viewed in the light most favorable to 

the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the 

victim’s death with malice. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we 

are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this 

Court.
#### OGLE v. STATE.

No. 24674.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1950.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1950.

Boling, Smith & Allen, S. P. Boling, Lubbock, for appellant. .

Lloyd A. Wicks, Jr., County Attorney, Crosbyton, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

■ WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant sold a pint of whiskey to W. A. Phillips on April 29, 1949, in Crosby County, Texas. He was tried and convicted and his punishment was assessed at a fine of Six Hundred Dollars- and six months confinement in jail.

These are the facts as stated in appellant’s brief. There is nó statement of facts in the record.

Proof that Crosby County was a dry area was made by introduction of the minutes of the Commissioners’ Court of said county from which minutes the county clerk read the orders that established the status of said county as being a dry area.

*165Appellant’s contention is that such minutes were not original papers and were therefore inadmissible until it was first shown that the original papers wére lost or destroyed.

The original minutes of the 'Commissioners’ Court, or certified copies thereof, are admissible as evidence to prove the status of a county as a dry area. See Clayton v. State, 67 Tex.Cr.R. 311, 149 S.W. 119, 124; Cook v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 523, 176 S.W.2d 941; and Art. 666—37, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

HAWKINS, P. J., absent.

On Motion for Rehearing

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant urges that we failed to get the gist of his objections to the testimony of the County Qerk, wherein he read from certain minutes of the Commissioners’ Court of Crosby County. It is the appellant’s contention that the original papers relative to such minutes were the best evidence and that secondary evidence relative to such orders was not admissible, the original orders not being presept or their absence accounted for. ■ We are; at a loss to understand such objection, unless it- means to say that the original notes of the meeting of the Commissioners’ Court should have been introduced herein as a basis of the minutes of such court.

It is shown that the , County Clerk testified that as such he had custody of the minutes of the Commissioners’ Court and he turned to Volume j) thereof, page 319, and read therefrom an order of such court. This proof could have been made-either, by the minutes themselves or by certified copies thereof. See Howard v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 624, 163 S.W. 429; Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 55 S.W, 968; Hart v. State, 67 Tex.Cr.R. 497, 150 S.W. 188; Jones v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 174 S.W. 349.

The statute, Art. 666 — 38, Vernon’s Ann: P.C., provides that the county judge of the county shall make an entry of the ¡result of such election in favor of the pror hibition of such sale in the minutes of the Commissioners’ Court,, and “an entry thus made or a copy thereof certified under the hand and seal of the clerk of the court shall be prima facie evidence of such posting.” See Cook v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 132 S.W.2d 404.

The motion for rehearing will'therefore be overruled. '
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2288 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2288

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for certain treatment 
                        of autism under TRICARE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2011

   Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Doyle) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for certain treatment 
                        of autism under TRICARE.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Caring for Military Kids with Autism 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN TREATMENT OF AUTISM UNDER TRICARE.

    Section 1077 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g)(1) In providing health care under subsection (a), the 
treatment of autism spectrum disorders shall include behavioral health 
treatment, including applied behavior analysis, when prescribed by a 
physician.
    ``(2) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure 
that--
            ``(A) except as provided by subparagraph (B), a person who 
        is authorized to provide behavioral health treatment is 
        licensed or certified by a State or accredited national 
        certification board; and
            ``(B) if applied behavior analysis or other behavioral 
        health treatment is provided by an employee or contractor of a 
        person described in subparagraph (A), the employee or 
        contractor shall meet minimum qualifications, training, and 
        supervision requirements as set forth by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```