alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2006/C 104/10)

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-2-004]

Take notice that on September 22, 2000, Overthrust Pipeline Company (Overthrust) tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, following tariff sheets, with an effective date of April 1, 2000:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 4

On July 28, 2000, Overthrust filed tariff sheets pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, Part 154 of the Commission's Regulations, as part of Overthrust's settlement, to be effective April 1, 2000, (the July 28 filing). Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 4, which was included in the July 28 filing, is being refiled as Sixth Revised Sheet No. 4 for the purpose of re-pagination and to include revisions resulting from an interim tariff filing approved August 1, 2000, under a separate proceeding in Docket No. RP00-384-000.

Overthrust states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Overthrust's customers, the Wyoming Public Service Commission and the Utah Division of Public Utilities.

                    Any person desiring to protest filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the web at http://      ( print page 58764)    www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                 

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25115  Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                            
|Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 1      | 0      | 1      | 1      | 1      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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. 4727 

To extend the suspension of duty on Cetalox. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Cetalox. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CETALOX. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.27 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Dodecahydro-3a,6,6,9atetramethylnaphtho(2,1-b)furan) is 

7 amended by striking the date in the effective period col8 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

10 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4727 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Wyoming Dry Natural Gas 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 884    | 998    | 795   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 841    | 1,202  | 614    | 331    | 818    | 586    | 314    | 318    | 252    | 207   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 190    | 109    | 297    | 498    | 371    | 231    | 411    | 2,047  | 839    | 603   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,486  | 2,574  | 3,069  | 3,068  | 3,105  | 1,987  | 2,211  | 4,666  | 2,566  | 3,501 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,117  | 2,214  | 953    | 1,400  | 766    | 500    | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
#### Neil H. BOWIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23144.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1945.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1945.

Robt. S. Durno, of Houston, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for embezzlement, punishment two years in the penitentiary.

The judgment is affirmed for the same reasons stated in our opinion in 188 S.W.2d 389.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             108
<SECURITIES>                                       251
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                        78
<INVENTORY>                                        299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,551
<PP&E>                                          46,268
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,602
<BONDS>                                          6,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,383
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,002
<SALES>                                             53
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,805
<CGS>                                               55
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    42
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                       386
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                633
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       633
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
Amendment No.1 to the
                  Edison International Equity Compensation Plan
                          (AS RESTATED JANUARY 1, 1998)





     Section 3.4 of the Edison International Equity Compensation Plan as
Restated January 1, 1998 is amended by adding the following section thereto as a
new Section 3.4(e) effective May 18, 2000:

     "(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 3.4, a Plan
          Award may contain specific provisions, determined by the Administrator
          at the time of the award and set forth in the written award instrument
          (or the statement of terms applicable thereto), regarding the
          consequences of a change in control of Edison International and, if so
          contained in an award, those provisions shall be controlling in the
          event of any inconsistency with this Section 3.4. (For example, and
          without limitation, a Plan Award may provide that accelerated vesting
          will occur in connection with a change in control event only if the
          Participant's employment is terminated by an EIX Company without cause
          or the Participant terminates employment with an EIX Company for good
          reason, and, in either event, the Participant does not otherwise
          continue as an employee of another EIX Company.)"

                                                  Edison International


                                                       John H. Kelly
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                         John H. Kelly, Senior Vice President
#### RHOADS et al. v. GARRISON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 27, 1951.

*79PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court for $360 in favor of Nathan R. Garrison for real estate commission. An appeal was granted below and also here. Although the pleadings and appellee’s brief state the judgment is for $630, the record shows it is only for $360 and we are bound by the record. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Fowler & Fowler, Lexington, for movant.

Yancey & Martin, Lexington, for opposed.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
#### In the Matter of David Rodriguez, Petitioner, v Thomas Coughlin, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Based on the misbehavior report and the uncontroverted hearing testimony, which revealed that petitioner was among several inmates who refused to go back inside the facility when ordered to do so and that some of those inmates had picked up bricks from the yard, it was not unreasonable for the Hearing Officer to conclude that petitioner was engaged in conduct involving a threat of violence. As such, the determination was supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Hernandez v LeFevre,*150 AD2d 954, 955, *lv denied*74 NY2d 615; *Matter of Taylor v Coughlin,*143 AD2d 493). In addition and contrary to petitioner’s contention, even if there were intermittent gaps in the record, reversal is not required where, as here, the alleged missing information is neither material to the determination nor of such significance as to preclude meaningful review *(see, Matter of Thomas v Coughlin,*145 AD2d 695, 696; *Matter of Wynter v Jones,*135 AD2d 1032, 1034).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5083 

To extend the suspension of duty on macroporous ion-exchange resin comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene, thiol 

functionalized. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on macroporous ion-exchange resin comprising a copolymer of styrene 

crosslinked with divinylbenzene, thiol functionalized. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MACROPOROUS ION-EXCHANGE RESIN COM4 PRISING A COPOLYMER OF STYRENE 

5 CROSSLINKED WITH DIVINYLBENZENE, 

6 THIOL FUNCTIONALIZED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.30 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

9 macroporous ion-exchange resin comprising a copolymer 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5083 IH

1 of styrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene, thiol 

2 functionalized) is amended by striking the date in the ef3 fective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

5 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Keith Thomas, Respondent, v Jondra Antonia, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Esworthy, J.), entered September 20, 1989, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, directed that the parties share joint custody of their children.

Order affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Judge Joseph W. Esworthy. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

# 2otc.f-AJM- 

# 2 

# 4'3-A-"D Directorate Identifier: -AD


### 1/vou make duwges to the vufues ill 

### !he table hdow. you 1111/SI ell

.\lfl'e 

### rite totals upda!e occordingly. 

### (I riley do not,**~. tick**  

### (or l'uh; into wul then ow 

## of the clwnged ce/1.
Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g. , aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance)

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost Do not include on- (include cost (labor + 

# u.s. for U.S. Fleet condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Installation ofthe \ 

### new conduit liner 47.3 $4,600 

### 176

.. ' 'jj " if ,'l{ 

# . q !L• 

## .; j,,, ' l'f! U 1 i0 

### •on
it 4 \i l >j ! if i 

### .. ] j )j**~** '· H P· tl iiq 1 _{jif ' i 

## '**~** l t)**~** t ·, 

### '\ ' ' 

### ' '>; ':n



# .. '' ·'**~** I f**~** I \ J**~'**



# . \
\ tH' 

## '· •t"-



# . :; i! •**~** > 'I 

# ., ' 0 j**1'~** 

### ,, ';:t 

# ' ("}I { 

### ' !,, H) 

### r**~** 

### •,**~** i
p (dl .• i\il .. t, .•!

• t;1 ' :3tH; L 

# "' ' ' 

# ..

- ·**~** ' ' · i:'• 

### The known number 

### of products in compliance: 

### Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $1,517,208 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) 

# s

On-Condition

# Costs:**~** Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g

., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing. and closeup)

• l 

### ' 

### '

I 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that 

### was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs):

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

# ~ YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [g) *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant?

# · YES* 

# D NO 

## [8'J *Explanation: Rcgulato•-y Flexibility Act: 

### Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer.

# ~ YES 

# D NO 

### [g) Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is 

### it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation?

# ~ YES* 

# D NO 

## [8'J *Explanation:
Exhibit
31.2



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Stuart Benson, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the report on Form 10-K of Akers Biosciences, Inc.; and



2.       Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report.



Date:
October 21, 2020



| | By: | /s/
    Stuart Benson                                        
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Stuart
        Benson
        Chief
        Financial Officer
#### WELLMAN v. STATE.

No. 24848.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1950.

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 failing to stop and render aid after a collision- between the automobile he was driving and a bicycle rider, injury resulting to said rider. The jury assessed the punishment at 60 days in jail.

Motion for new trial was overruled on January 26, 1950, and appellant gave notice of appeal and entered into recognizance.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The statement of facts found in the record does not bear the approval of the trial judge, and cannot be considered.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.E.M. PETITION 

OF : N.E.M., A CHILD IN CUSTODY

:

:

:

:

:

No. 288 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF : N.E.M. PETITION : No. 289 EAL 2022

OF : N.E.M., A CHILD IN CUSTODY :

: 

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

 From the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all 

remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Did not the Superior Court err in denying the petition for specialized review 

under Pa.R.A.P. 1612 without issuing a memorandum opinion where 

petitioner had a right to review, such review falls under the abuse of 

discretion standard, and the juvenile court failed to make a record of its 

reasons or issue an opinion for the Superior Court to review?