alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                                
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|New Mexico--West 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 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
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4542 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain modacrylic staple 

fibers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. JONES 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 

modacrylic staple fibers. 

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 MODACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.05 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain modacrylic staple fibers) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4542 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Colorado Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Colorado Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (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     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 5      | 4      | 0      | 158    | 38     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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:                                     
|                                                  
|Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                  
|                                                  
|Pennsylvania 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 1      | 65    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 396    | 1,068  | 2,036  | 3,076  | 4,009  | 4,597  | 5,049  | 5,365  | 6,079  | 6,782 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 7,040  | 7,546  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Michael Zachry, Appellant, v County of Nassau, Defendant, and Massapequa General Hospital, Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated June 26, 1989, which, upon renewal and reargument, granted the defendant Massapequa General Hospital’s motion to vacate its default in answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The issue of whether a default should be vacated is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co.,*60 NY2d 693).

In the instant case, the defendant Massapequa General Hospital contracted with National Emergency Services (hereinafter NES) to provide medical doctors in its emergency room. From the time it became aware of the action pending against it, the hospital sought to have NES assume its defense. The plaintiff’s attorney was fully apprised of the hospital’s efforts to have an answer interposed by the proper party. At the time of the hospital’s original motion to vacate the default in answering, it was attempting to obtain an affidavit from the acting director of emergency room services, who was an employee of NES. Due to the conflicting positions between the hospital and NES, such an affidavit could not be obtained. When the hospital changed counsel, these facts were brought to the court’s attention.

Under the circumstances, we find that the hospital’s proof of a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense was sufficient *(see, Stewart v Warren,*134 AD2d 585). Moreover, the hospital "had clearly indicated its intent to defend the action, the delay in serving the answer was brief and nondeliberate, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay” *(Dusovic v New Jersey Tr. Bus Operations,*124 AD2d 634, 635; *see, Patterson v Town of Hempstead,*104 AD2d 975). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in vacating the hospital’s default upon renewal and reargument. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### MOODY v. STATE.

No. 24335.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for sodomy; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. A motion for new trial was overruled and sentence pronounced against appellant on October 14, 1948. Ninety days from said date were granted' in which to file the statement of facts and bills of exception. The trial term of the court adjourned on October 30, 1948. Appellant entered into recognizance on appeal on October 16, 1948. He gave notice of appeal on October 14, 1948, at which time the jurisdiction of this court attached, and the trial court lost jurisdiction at the same time.

We find in the transcript a pauper’s oath which appellant executed on November 12, 1948, and filed with the clerk of the trial court on November 16, 1948, in which appellant swears that he was financially unable to pay for a statement of facts, is without funds and unable to make bond to secure the costs of such statement of facts, and requests that same be furnished him. There is nothing in the record to show that this pauper’s oath was ever acted on by the trial court or that it was ever called to the court’s attention.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40034

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEONDRUS MCBRIDE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:99-CV-529

USDC No. 1:96-CR-101-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leondrus McBride, Jr., federal prisoner # 04496-078, requests a certificate

of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of two motions, filed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), in which he sought to vacate a judgment

denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. A COA is required because the denial of Rule

60(b) relief was “the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.” 28 U.S.C.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40034 Document: 00511671759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2011
No. 11-40034

§ 2253(c)(1)(B); see Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir.

2007). 

McBride argues that reasonable jurists could debate the denial of his Rule

60(b) motions because in the initial § 2255 proceeding the district court did not

address a claim that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge an

allegedly invalid warrant and it failed to rule on two motions for production of

grand jury transcripts. The district court denied the motions as unauthorized

successive § 2255 motions. We agree that the motions were unauthorized

successive petitions such that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider

them. We dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Key, 205

F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000).

McBride also moves to vacate the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief on

the ground that the judgment lacks finality because it did not resolve all pending

motions. That motion is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO VACATE DENIED.

2

Case: 11-40034 Document: 00511671759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2011
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-1868

___________ Oleta M. Carter, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Mona K. Davis; Kimberly Schwartz; * Western District of Arkansas. Arkansas Department of Human * Services, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 2, 2002 Filed: August 15, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Oleta Carter appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination lawsuit. Upon de novo review, see Helfter v. United Parcel Serv. , 115 F.3d 613, 615 (8th Cir. 1997), we affirm for the-2- reasons stated by the district court, and deny her request for a transcript, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4861 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Chlorotrifluoroethylene. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 

Chlorotrifluoroethylene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROTRIFLUOROETHYLENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ethene, 1 Chloro-1,2,2- 

trifluoro 

(Chlorotrifluoroethylene) 

(CAS No. 79–38–9) (provided for in subheading 

2903.77.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4861 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development Administration

Performance Review Board; membership

    The following individuals are eligible to serve on the Performance 
Review Board in accordance with the Senior Executive Service 
Performance Appraisal System of the Economic Development 
Administration.

Gerald R. Lucas
Charles R. Sawyer
Pedro R. Garza
William J. Day, Jr.
Hugh L. Brennan

Vicki G. Brooks,
Executive Secretary, Economic Development Administration Performance 
Review Board.
[FR Doc. 00-24639 Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-BS-M
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO,**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO,**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Reportof Universal Bioenergy, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vince M. Guest, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,That to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)	The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

UNIVERSAL BIOENERGY, INC.

 

 

***By /s/ VINCE M. GUEST***

Vince M. Guest

President and Chief Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer, Principal

Accounting Officer and Director

 

April 16, 2012
#### Richard L. PECK, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky. Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 16, 1952.

William G. Reed, Carrollton, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court by Richard L. Peck from a judgment convicting him of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon -the public highways with a gross weight in excess of 42,000 pounds, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $500.

A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to movant’s substantial rights and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                     |  |                        |  |                                           
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                           |  | State of Incorporation |  | Additional Information                    
|Global Alliance Holdings, Ltd.       |  | Pennsylvania           |  | d/b/a Eastern Alliance Insurance Group    
|                                     |  |                       
|Eastern Alliance Insurance Company   |  | Pennsylvania           |  | Member of Eastern Alliance Insurance Group
|                                     |  |                       
|Allied Eastern Indemnity Company     |  | Pennsylvania           |  | Member of Eastern Alliance Insurance Group
|                                     |  |                       
|Eastern Advantage Assurance Company  |  | Pennsylvania           |  | Member of Eastern Alliance Insurance Group
|                                     |  |                       
|Employers Alliance, Inc.             |  | Pennsylvania           |  |                                           
|                                     |  |                       
|Eastern Re, Ltd. S.P.C.              |  | Cayman Islands         |  |                                           
|                                     |  |                       
|Eastern Services Corporation         |  | Pennsylvania           |  |                                           
|                                     |  |                       
|Employers Security Insurance Company |  | Indiana                |  | Member of Eastern Alliance Insurance Group
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 4(d)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                       TO

               THE AMERUS LIFE HOLDINGS, INC. STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


         As of September 20, 2000, the effective time of the merger (the
"Merger") of AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc., an Iowa corporation ("ALH"), with and
into AmerUs Group Co., an Iowa corporation (the "Company"), the Board of
Directors of the Company (the "Board"), on behalf of the Company, assumed,
approved and adopted the AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan").

         In connection with the assumption, approval and adoption of the Plan,
the Board has authorized and directed this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan.

         Pursuant to the authorization and direction of the Board, the Plan is
hereby amended and supplemented effective September 20, 2000, as follows:

         1.   The title of the Plan shall hereinafter be the "AMERUS GROUP CO.
              STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN."

         2.   The first paragraph of Section I. of the Plan is hereby amended
              and restated as follows:

     "The name of this plan is the AmerUs Group Co. Stock Incentive Plan (the
     "Plan"). The purpose of the Plan is to enable AmerUs Group Co. (the
     "Company") and its Subsidiaries to attract and retain employees who
     contribute to the Company's success by their ability, ingenuity and
     industry, and to enable such employees to participate in the long-term
     success and growth of the Company through an equity interest in the
     Company."

         3.   The following definitions as set forth under Section I. of the
              Plan are hereby amended and restated as follows:

              "g. "COMPANY" means AmerUs Group Co., a corporation organized
              under the laws of the State of Iowa (or any successor
              corporation)."

              "s. "STOCK" means the Common Stock of the Company."

         4.   Any currently outstanding and unexercised award or option under
              the Plan which in any way relates to rights in or rights to
              purchase common stock of or other equity interest in ALH is hereby
              amended such that all such awards and options shall relate to
              rights in or rights to purchase common stock of or other equity
              interests, as the case may be, in the Company.
#### GRAY v. STATE.

No. 25025.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1951.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P.. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of Fifty Dollars.

There are no bills of exception nor a statement of facts in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.