alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Pennsylvania Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Pennsylvania 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2,409 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5,154  | 9,835  | 11,610 | 13,541 | 10,059 | 9,286  | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
#### HUGHES v. STATE.

No. 24536.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1949.

Fryer & Milstead, El Paso, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a 'public highway in El Paso County, Texas, while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at ,a fine of Fifty Dollars. From this judgment, he has appealed to this court.

He brings forward two complaints, each by a separate bill of exception, in the first of which, he complains of the' action of the district attorney in the cross examination of appellant by propounding to him the following question: “You have previously been tried for drunk driving?” Counsel for appellant immediately objected, and during the argument which arose he, appellant, answered, “Well, I 'don’t remember.” The court sustained the objection and instructed the jury not to consider the same for any purpose whatsoever. Appellant contends, however, that the matter complained of is of such a prejudicial nature that the court could not effectively withdraw it from the minds of the jury and in support of his contention cites us to some authorities which seem to sustain his contention; but, in those cases the accused’s punishment exceeded the minimum prescribed by law for said offenses while, in the instant case the jury assessed the minimum punishment.

It appears to us that since the court sustained the objection, instructed the jury not to consider the same and the minimum punishment being assessed by the jury, who had sufficient evidence 'before them to sustain their conclusion of his guilt, it. did not prejudice him or his case with the jury. Appellant cites us to the case of Burton v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 327, 194 S.W.2d 398, as sustaining his contention. There is this distinction between that and this case — in that case the court overruled the objection and permitted the jury to consider it while in the instant case the court sustained the objection and instructed the jury not to consider it. We therefore overrule his contention. See Brown v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 92, 14 S.W.2d 63; Mosley v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 157, 300 S.W. 48; Williams v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 219, 18 S.W.2d 654; Torres v. State, 113 *192Tex.Cr.R. 1, 18 S.W.2d 179; Staglik v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 13 S.W.2d 376; and Cox v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 260, 12 S. W.2d 586.

By Bill of Exception No. 2 he complains of the action of the trial court in declining to sustain his motion to enter a mistrial. What we have said in disposing of Bill of Exception No. 1 disposes of this complaint.

No error of a reversible nature appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
| (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  May      8, 2009                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| /s/Jimmy      E. Addison                               |   |
| Jimmy      E. Addison                                  |   |
| Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

|   | A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4683 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fluopicolide. 

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 Fluopicolide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUOPICOLIDE. 

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 2,6-Dichloro-N-{2-[3- 

chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)- 

2- 

pyridinyl]ethyl}benzamide 

(Fluopicolide) (CAS No. 

239110–15–7) (provided 

for in subheading 

2933.39.21) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4683 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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.4(c)
 
  
    Legal Fees
 Legal Fees:
    
    In the event of a contest between you and VWR or its subsidiaries or
affiliates during your lifetime regarding a breach or alleged breach of this Agreement,
VWR agrees to pay (within ten business days of receipt of an invoice from you) all
reasonable legal fees and expenses that you have incurred as a result of such contest;
provided, however, that if you do not substantially prevail in such contest, you agree
to reimburse VWR for any such payments, and VWR shall make no further payments under
this paragraph. The amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement under this paragraph
during any taxable year shall not affected the expenses eligible for reimbursement in
any other taxable year.
   /s/
Timothy P. Sullivan
  /s/ John BallbachJohn Ballbach
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|Texas - RRC District 7B Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|Texas - RRC District 7B 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 102   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 102    | 126    | 134    | 113    | 148    | 121    | 102    | 130    | 108    | 115   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 88     | 94     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
MinnkotaPower

[!VIPg coo PER A T I V E, INC.

1822 Mill Road, PO. Box 13200 • Grand Forks, ND 58208-3200 • Phone (701) 795-4000

September 22, 2008

Terry O'Clair, Director

Division of Air Quality

North Dakota Department of Health

918 East Divide Avenue, 2nd Floor

Bismarck, NO 58501-1947

RE: Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., et al

U.S. District Court for the District of NO

Civil Action No.1 :06-CV-034

NOx BACT Determination

Dear Mr. O'Clair;

Your Touchstone Energy" Partner

-

Enclosed, please find Minnkota Power Cooperative's response to comments received by the

North Dakota Department of Health from the U.S. EPA, the United States Department of

Justice's contractor, and Plains Justice, during the public comment period on the Department's

preliminary BACT determination for the control of NOx from Milton R. Young Station. These

comments were prepared on Minnkota's behalf by Burns & McDonnell and their subcontractor,

Tackticks LLC, and the Energy and Environmental Research Center of the University of North

Dakota.

In general, we did not find the submitted comments substantially different then comments

previously made by the USEPA and DOJ. Based upon our review, we believe the NDDH's

preliminary determination in regards to the NOx BACT analysis is correct and appropriate.

Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed comments, please contact me at 701-

795-4221.

Sincerely yours,

TA POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.

7,/t~~ John T. Graves, P.E.

Environmental Manager

c: David Sogard w/o encl

Luther Kvernen w/o encl

Craig Bleth w/o encl

Andrew Freidt w/o encl

Stu Libby w/o encl

Tom Anseth w/o encl

Young Station File
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4507 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4507

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cloquintocet-mexyl.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cloquintocet-mexyl.

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

SECTION 1. CLOQUINTOCET-MEXYL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.57 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Cloquintocet-mexyl) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
GEORGIA
INTERNATIONAL MINING CORP.







Exhibit
32.1 - Certifications






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002




I, Ed
Forister,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that this report on Form 10-K/A of
Georgia International Mining Corporation for the period ending December 31,
2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information 
contained in this report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all
material respects the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of  Georgia International Mining
Corporation.




May
18, 2009




/s/
Ed
Forister


Ed
Forister, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and


Chief
Accounting Officer, Georgia International Mining Corp.
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed 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 report is being
prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 c)
    
    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
 d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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;
and
 b)
    
    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: March 13, 2009
    By:
    /s/    Christopher L. NagelChristopher L. NagelVice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer 77
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|No chart available.                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                  
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Florida Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4634 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4634

     To extend the suspension of duty on 2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the suspension of duty on 2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene.

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

SECTION 1. 2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 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>
```
**Exhibit10.45**

**STSBiopolymers**

*an STS**company*

336 Summit Point Dr.. Henrietta, New York 14467  Tel: 716-321-1130  Fax: 716-321-1575

May 16, 1998

Mike McLain

V.P. Operations

Micro Therapeutics, Inc.

1062-F Calle Negocio

San Clemente, CA 92673

Dear Mr. McLain:

This letter confirms ourdiscussion of Tuesday, May 5, 1998.  STSagrees to reduce the royalty rate specified in section 3.2 of the two licenseagreements, dated November 18, 1996, by and between STS Biopolymers, Inc. andMicro Therapeutics, Inc. from four percent (4%) to three percent (3%),effective immediately.

We also discussed adding a .010” guidewire (similar toa wire previously offered to the market by MIS) to the agreements. After ourdiscussion I reread the agreements; both include “...any device used invascular access procedures...” in the definition (section 1.5) of COATEDPRODUCTS and the license grant is defined in terms of COATED PRODUCTS.Therefore, I conclude that the guidewire is already included in the license.

If you agree with the royalty rate change and myinterpretation that the wires are already included in the license, would youplease countersign one original of this letter and return it to me for ourfile?

Sincerely,
| /s/Richard D. Richmond |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Richard D. Richmond    |
| President              |

 

RDR/mac

xc:  R. Goodwin,M. Lydon, R. Whitbourne

Agreed for Micro Therapeutics
| /s/ H.A. Hurwitz        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (title)                 |
|                    |
| 5/21/98                 |   |
| (date)                  |

 

----
#### Marshall GOWER v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 1564.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 14, 1937.

Glenn O. Young, of Sapulpa, Old., for appellant.

Chester A. Brewer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Old.

Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed. at appellant’s costs, for failure to prosecute, on motion of appellee.