alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)        
|View History: Annual                                  
|View History: Annual                                  
|View History:                                         
|                                                      
|New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                      
|                                                      
|New Mexico--West Shale Production (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 4      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 2      | 6      | W      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4679 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4679

 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing Fluopyram and 
                            Prothioconazole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing Fluopyram and 
                            Prothioconazole.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING FLUOPYRAM AND PROTHIOCONAZOLE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Mixtures            Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          containing N-{2-                                                  12/31/2015
                          [3-Chloro-5-
                          (trifluoromethyl)-
                          2-
                          pyridinyl]ethyl}-
                          alpha,alpha,alpha-
                          trifluoro-o-
                          toluamide
                          (Fluopyram) (CAS
                          No. 658066-35-4)
                          and 2-[2-(1-
                          chlorocyclopropyl
                          )-3-(2-
                          chlorophenyl)-2-
                          hydroxypropyl]-
                          1,2-dihydro-3H-
                          1,2,4-triazole-3-
                          thione
                          (Prothioconazole)
                          (CAS No. 178928-
                          70-6), including
                          application
                          adjuvants
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3808.91.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wine Cellars, Ltd., Respondent, v Austin Nichols & Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for unfair competition, the defendant Austin Nichols & Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered June 20, 1989, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Assuming the factual allegations of the complaint to be true for the purposes of this motion *(see, 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander’s, Inc.,*46 NY2d 506; *Kushner v King,*126 AD2d 466), and being mindful of the liberal construction to be afforded pleadings *(see,*CPLR 3026), we conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action *(see, Maison Lazard Et Compagnie v Manfra, Tordella & Brooks,*585 F Supp 1286; *Electrolux Corp. v Val-Worth, Inc.,*6 NY2d 556; *Metropolitan Opera Assn. v Wagner-Nichols Recorder Corp.,*199 Misc 786, *affd*279 App Div 632).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         560,225
<SECURITIES>                                   6,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  922,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,141
<INVENTORY>                                    322,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,008,103
<PP&E>                                         714,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                 442,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,299,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          598,271
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,665,835
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,486,171
<SALES>                                        4,109,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,292,409
<CGS>                                          603,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  603,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,376,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,315,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,315,978
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,315,978
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .08



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14(A) / 15D-14(A)
  1.
    
    I have read this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SIFCO Industries, Inc.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such internal
controls and procedures to be designated under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; andb.
    
    paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 33-8545,34-51293 and 34-47986; andc.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 10, 2007
    
    
    
    /s/ Jeffrey P. GotschallJeffrey P. GotschallChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4618 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used compressionignition internal combustion piston engines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. SCHOCK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used 

compression-ignition internal combustion piston engines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN USED COMPRESSION-IGNITION IN4 TERNAL COMBUSTION PISTON ENGINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.31 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain used compression-ignition internal combustion pis8 ton engines) is amended by striking the date in the effec9 tive period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4618 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### MAUK v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 23, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1954.

Ora Duval, W. H. Counts, Olive Hill, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Major Gardner, Commonwealth’s Atty., West Liberty, Ky., D. V. Kibbey, County Atty., Grayson, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant, charged with murder, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in the penitentiary. He contends generally that the verdict is “against both the law and the evidence” and that the instructions were erroneous.

The principal complaint of appellant seems to be that he was tried some 18 years after the commission of the alleged crime. This was brought about by the fact that he left Kentucky and lived under other names in other states.

In 1935 appellant shot and killed a deputy constable in Carter County. The shooting and killing are admitted, and therefore it was incumbent upon appellant to justify it. The deceased was pursuing a friend of appellant in an attempt to arrest him. Apparently appellant attempted to interfere with this arrest and thereupon the deceased directed his attention to and tried to arrest him. There is no question but what the deceased struck appellant with a walking cane, perhaps more than once. There is testimony, however, that prior thereto appellant had his pistol in his hand and there is testimony that appellant, immediately before this attack, had threatened to kill somebody.

We think there was sufficient evidence in the record to submit the question of guilt to the jury. As a matter of fact appellant does not directly argue to the contrary, his contention being that the witnesses for the Commonwealth could not be believed.

Appellant objects to the instructions on the ground they assume the deceased had a lawful right to arrest appellant’s friend or appellant. As we view the case the question of the constable’s right to make an arrest was not the significant issue involved. *373The only question was whether or not appellant acted in his necessary self-defense.

A careful consideration of the instructions shows they presented every theory of the defense to which appellant was entitled. Actually he was given two separate self-defense instructions. One of these instructions authorized the jury to acquit appellant if the deceased began the attack upon him with the cane and appellant believed it was necessary to shoot and kill the deceased in order to avert apparent danger to himself. The other instruction authorized the acquittal of appellant if he did not know that the deceased was a deputy constable or that he had placed or attempted to place appellant under arrest, and it appeared necessary for appellant to shoot the deceased in-order to protect himself.

As we have above stated, the only real question was whether or not appellant was justified in killing the deceased during the altercation. The jury, which was instructed on all phases of the case, believed he was not. We find no prejudicial error in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### MORALES v. STATE.

No. 26486.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1954.

Russell F. Wolters, Gordon O. McGehee, Houston, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The offense is rape; the punishment, five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

This is’ a statutory rape case — that is, ’ carnal knowledge of a female "under the age of eighteen years, with or without consent, and not the wife of the accused. • Art. 1183, P.C.

The prosecutrix, fourteen years of age, testified to facts showing that appellant engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The appellant denied the act of intercourse, but admitted that he was present and with prose-cutrix at the time and place she says the act of intercourse occurred.

In order to convict, it was not necessary for the state to show that the pros-ecutrix resisted.

The facts are sufficient to support the conviction.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is the sole question presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

In his motion for rehearing the appellant suggests that he was not properly represented in the trial court because of the fact that the court appointed an inexperienced attorney to represent him. The statement of facts does not evidence any inexperience on the part of the appellant’s appointed attorney. In fact, he seems to have done the best he could under the circumstances.

There is no denial upon the part of the appellant that he took Maria Castra, a girl *260fourteen years of age, in his pick-up, drove out on a lonely road to a secluded spot, and, according to the appellant, he attempted to have intercourse with her three times. According to her testimony, he penetrated her body. This he denied. This matter was passed upon by the jury and they found the appellant guilty of the rape of this child.

Under the evidence presented, we think our opinion herein affirming this case is correct in all things.

The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

M.D.F., a child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1092

[ November 9, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Kathleen J. Kroll , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- CJ

002947

- XXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. Coronato, J r., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C IKLIN , C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

                  Re:    Soundview Home Loan Trust, Series 2005-1
                         Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-1
                         ----------------------------------------

            I, Robert McGinnis, certify that:

            l. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing Distribution Date reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Financial Asset
Securities Corp. (the "Registrant");

            2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

            3. Based on my knowledge, the servicing information required to be
provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement is included in these reports;

            4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and based upon the review
required under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in
the report, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement; and

            5. I have disclosed to the Registrant's certified public accountants
all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards in accordance with a review conducted in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
standard as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

            Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated February 1, 2005
(the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among the Registrant as Depositor,
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. as servicer and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company as trustee.

                                          FINANCIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORP.

                                          By: /s/ Robert McGinnis
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Robert McGinnis
                                          Title: President
                                          Date: March 30, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental 
Health.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual 
investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National 
Institute of Mental Health.
    Date: October 4, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Building 10, Room 4N230, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Susan Koester, Executive Secretary, Associate 
Director for Science, Intramural Research Program, National 
Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Building 10, Room 4N222, MSC 1381, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-1381, 301-496-3501.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the intramural research review cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 15, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-24721 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KENNETH FAISON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 776 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### MEEKS v. STATE.

No. 26830.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 10, 1954.

■ No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of burglary, and his punishment was assessed at four years in the penitentiary.

The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court