alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 7,442  | 6,574  | 11,707 | 9,631  | 7,810  | 8,079 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 9,687  | 9,391  | 9,476  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4797 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on combination single slot toaster 

and toaster ovens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on combination 

single slot toaster and toaster ovens. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMBINATION SINGLE SLOT TOASTER AND 

4 TOASTER OVENS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.40 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 combination single slot toaster and toaster ovens) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4797 IH

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

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

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4667 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Isoxadifen-Ethyl. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on IsoxadifenEthyl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ISOXADIFEN-ETHYL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.45 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Isoxadifen-Ethyl) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4667 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
OAR Box 1500 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

80)11-0106 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/5/2008 1:51:30 PM Sheet 80 of 343 

P.1 
P.2 

^ > S T ^ . 

$ \ 

\ PB0l«-& 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

A-^-5 2 

U-C-10 6 

DEC I 6 $98 AMI 

M V - '•} f* ' ' 

••'I t. / •J.-.J 

EP* ;.; R 'lOr.KF.T 

OFTICE OF 

QUALITY PLANNING 

Mr AND STANDARDS . Jack Hanley 

Process Technologies, Inc. 

8315 Lantern View Lane 

St. John, Indiana 46373 

Dear Mr. Hanley: 

In our telephone conversation of last week, you asked whether the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) requires "proof of concept" verification for add-on control systems that 

have not been used in the United States, such as the concentrator systems we had discussed. The 

EPA does not require control device suppliers to certify or prove a device's capability. However, 

when sources use the devices to comply with an EPA rule (e.g., a national emission standard for 

hazardous air pollutants), the source generally must conduct an initial performance test (and in 

some cases, subsequent performance tests) to demonstrate compliance with the rule. This test 

may consist of deterrniiiing the control efficiency ofthe control system by measuring inlet and 

outlet pollutant concentrations ofthe control device, and, if applicable, determining the capture 

efficiency ofthe capture system. The specifics regarding test methods and monitoring are written 

in the rule. In addition, sources using an add-on control device generally need to perform 

continuous monitoring of emissions or a surrogate parameter that serves to indicate that the 

source is achieving continuous compliance with the rule. The source would also need to monitor 

the capture system. You may want to look over the EPA's Emission Measurement Center's 

webpage (www.epa.gov/ttn/emc) which provides information on monitoring and test methods. 

I did want to bring your attention to the EPA's Environmental Technology Verification 

(ETV) program (website is www.epa.gov/etv) which has several pilot projects to verify the 

environmental performance characteristics of commercial-ready technologies. The ETV was 

created to substantially accelerate the entrance of new environmental technologies into the 

domestic and international marketplace. While new control methods .are not required to be 

verified by the ETV, you may be interested in learning more about the program. 

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Please contact me if you require additional 

information. 

Sincerely, 

-i\<M-V*JL^-

Madeleine Strum 

Environmental Engineer 

Coatings and Consumer Products Group 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.430v 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 

~i
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                       
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Montana Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (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      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 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
|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                              
|Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                              
|Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 65    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 36     | 93     | 114    | 371    | 122    | 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6387

HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WENELISA NAVARRO, M.D.; ISAIAS TESSEMA, M.D.; ERWIN ALDANA, 

M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-01985-AW)

Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 1, 2012

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton 

Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hugh Maurice Allen Wade appeals from the grant of 

summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Wade v. Navarro, No. 8:09-cv-01985-AW (D. 

Md. filed Sept. 11 & entered Sept. 14, 2009; filed May 17 & 

entered May 18, 2010; Feb. 8, 2011). In addition, we decline to 

exercise continuing jurisdiction over Wade’s case. See

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05 (1974) (absent 

constitutional violations, federal courts should be reluctant to 

interfere with state prison administration). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00040

- CV

Eldo E. FREZZA , M.D.,

Appellant

v.

Melissa FLORES

, Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CVB000655D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant Eldo E. Frezza, M.D.

SIGNED November 21, 2018.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Decreases (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 7      | 5      | 2      | 4      | 7      | 3      | 2      | 0      | 3      | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 4816 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4816

    To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced 
    interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

  Mr. Tierney (for himself, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
 George Miller of California, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Levin, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
 Kildee, Mr. Peters, Ms. Chu, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Holt, and 
Ms. Slaughter) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced 
    interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Stop the Rate Hike Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE EXTENSION.

    Section 455(b)(7)(D) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(b)(7)(D)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``and 
        before July 1, 2012,'' and inserting ``and before July 1, 
        2013,''; and
            (2) in clause (v), by striking ``and before July 1, 2012,'' 
        and inserting ``and before July 1, 2013,''.

SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 
              ACTIVITIES NOT ALLOWED WITH RESPECT TO OIL AND GAS 
              ACTIVITIES OF MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 199(d)(9) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(9 percent in 
the case of any major integrated oil company (as defined in section 
167(h)(5)))'' after ``3 percent''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22

- 0196 Filed September 21, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF R.S., Minor Child, R.B., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachel E. Seymour,
District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED

.

John Audlehelm of Audlehelm Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey

- Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Nicole Garbis Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J. , and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.2

AHLERS , Presiding Judge

. The child, R.S., was born in 2021. The father was incarcerated at the time of the child’s birth and remained incarcer a ted through the termination hearing that leads to this appeal. The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to the child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (h) (2021)

. 1 The court also terminated the parental rights of the child’s mother. Only the father appeals.
We review termination

- of

- parental

- rights proceedings de novo. In re Z. K

. , 9 73 N.W.2d 27 , 3 2 (Iowa 202 2 ). The father raises only one issue

— that the Sta te failed to prove the statutory ground for termination by abandonment under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b). He makes no challenge to termination under section 232.116(1)(h).
We need not address th e father’s challenge to termination under
section 232. 116(1)(b)

. When , as here, a parent’s rights are terminated under multiple statutory grounds, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). As the father fails to challenge
termination under section 232.116(1)(h), he waives any claim of error on that ground. See In re N.N. , No. 21

- 1978, 2022 WL 610318, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 2, 2022) (holding failure to challenge one of the grounds for termination permits us to affirm on that ground without analy zing other grounds challenged). Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s ruling that termination is appropriate

1 The termination order states the father ’s parental rights were also terminated under section 232.116(1)(e) . This appears to be a typographical error, as the court dismissed that ground during the termination hearing.3

under section 232.116(1)( h ) . As the father makes no other challenge to the termination order, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.