alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|South Dakota Natural Gas Processed in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|South Dakota Natural Gas Processed in North Dakota (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                                                                                                                            |        |        | 113    | 86     | 71     | 62     | 67     | 58     | 38     | 11    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Case 5:20-cv-00387-OLG Document 112 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 1
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA and NHTSA Response to June 17, 2015

Interagency Comments on Preamble Section I - HDV Phase 

2 NPRM

Agencies	Responses:		In	response	to	interagency	comments,	the	agencies	will	incorporate	

the	following	edits,	which	we	believe	meets	the	intent	of	the	interagency	suggested	edits	

while	improving	the	precision	and	clarity	of	the	request	for	comments.

...

The agencies request comment on which alternative baseline scenarios would be most 

appropriate for analysis in the final rule the appropriateness of these reference cases. 

Specifically, the agencies request empirical evidence to support whether the agencies should use 

for the final rule the central cases used in this proposal, alternative sensitivity cases such as those 

mentioned below, or some other scenarios. See Section X.A.1of this Preamble and Chapter 11 

of the draft RIA for a more detailed discussion of baselines.

As part of a sensitivity analysis, additional baseline scenarios were also evaluated for HD 

pickups and vans, including baseline payback periods of 12, 18 and 24 months. See Section VI 

of this Preamble and Chapter 10 of the draft RIA for a detailed discussion of these additional 

scenarios.
**Exhibit 31.2.1*****Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for SCW***I, Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2005of Southern California Water Company (referred to as “SCW”);  2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of SCW as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4) SCW’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for SCW and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to SCW, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of SCW’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in SCW’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during SCW’s most recent fiscal quarter (SCW’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, SCW’s internal control over financial reporting. 5) SCW’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to SCW’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect SCW’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in SCW’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Dated: August 18, 2005 By:  /s/ ROBERT J. SPROWLS    Robert J. Sprowls         Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief FinancialOfficer, Treasurer and Secretary   
31
|                                                                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                                
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 1      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BILLY RAY FAIRLEY, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-229; CA-04-28-1) Submitted: November 14, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of Fairley’s motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fairley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
*The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United States Circuit Judge

for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

___________

No. 95-2205

___________

Eric S. Hart, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

James D. Purkett, * Eastern District of Missouri.

Superintendent of the *

Farmington Correctional Center, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 10, 1996

 Filed: March 12, 1996

___________

Before LOKEN, REAVLEY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Eric Hart appeals the denial of his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. Hart was convicted of attempted rape and armed

criminal action and sentenced to eight years in prison. The conviction was

affirmed on direct appeal. Hart did not petition the state court for

postconviction relief within the time then prescribed in Missouri R. Crim.

P. 29.15. His later petition to the Missouri Supreme Court for a writ of

habeas corpus was denied because he failed to pursue the Rule 29.15 remedy.

Hart then filed this federal habeas petition, asserting numerous

grounds for relief. He raises one issue on appeal, that
 The HONORABLE CATHERINE D. PERRY, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

the district court erred in denying some claims as procedurally barred by 1

his failure to seek state court postconviction relief under Rule 29.15.

Hart argues that he had cause for this failure because the trial court gave

misleading advice at sentencing as to the Rule 29.15 procedure, and because

Rule 29.15 before its recent amendment was a fundamentally unfair procedure

in that its time constraints left a defendant dependent upon his trial

counsel for advice regarding the assertion of ineffective assistance

claims. 

After pronouncing Hart's sentence, the trial judge explained the Rule

29.15 procedure and inquired whether Hart was satisfied with his trial

attorney's assistance. When Hart responded that he was satisfied and

thought counsel had done a good job, the court made a finding on the record

that there was no probable cause to believe Hart had received ineffective

assistance. See Missouri Crim. Rule 29.07; Shigemura v. Groose, 45 F.3d

250, 253 n.3 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 157 (1995). While the

court made a relatively minor mistake in explaining the Rule 29.15 time

limits to Hart, nothing in the record suggests that Hart contemplated

pursuing any remedy other than a direct appeal during the period in which

a timely Rule 29.15 petition could have been filed. We conclude that

Hart's colloquy with the trial court at sentencing establishes that he

cannot show cause excusing his procedural default. Accordingly, we need

not reach the other grounds for affirmance urged by appellee. The judgment

of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58561-58562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24921]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-940-01-5410-10-B132; CACA 42355]


Conveyance of Mineral Interests in California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of segregation.

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

[[Page 58562]]

SUMMARY: The private land described in this notice, aggregating 2,402 
acres, is segregated and made unavailable for filings under the general 
mining laws and the mineral leasing laws to determine its suitability 
for conveyance of the reserved mineral interest pursuant to section 209 
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976.
    The mineral interests will be conveyed in whole or in part upon 
favorable mineral examination.
    The purpose is to allow consolidation of surface and subsurface of 
minerals ownership where there are no known mineral values or in those 
instances where the reservation interferes with or precludes 
appropriate nonmineral development and such development is a more 
beneficial use of the land than the mineral development.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Gary, California State Office, 
Federal Office Building, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1928, Sacramento, 
California 95825, (916) 978-4677.

Serial No. CACA 42355.

T. 5 N., R. 13 W., San Bernardino, Meridian
    Sec. 6, Lots 1-4,
    Sec. 8, NE\1/4\NE\1/4\,
    Sec. 9, NW\1/4\, S\1/2\NE\1/4\,
T. 6 N., R. 13 W., San Bernardino, Meridian
    Sec. 23, SW\1/4\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\,
    Sec. 25, S\1/2\SW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\,
    Sec. 26, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, E\1/2\SE\1/4\,
    Sec. 27, Lots 2 and 3, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, E\1/
2\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\,
    Sec. 28, S\1/2\N\1/2\, W\1/2\SW\1/4\,
    Sec. 34, N\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\, S\1/2\SE\1/4\,
    Sec. 35, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, E\1/2\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, S\1/
2\SE\1/4\,
    Sec. 36, SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\.

County--Los Angeles

    Minerals Reservation--All coal and other minerals.

    Upon publication of this Notice of Segregation in the Federal 
Register as provided in 43 CFR 2720.1-1(b), the mineral interests owned 
by the United States in the private lands covered by the application 
shall be segregated to the extent that they will not be subject to 
appropriation under the mining and mineral leasing laws. The 
segregative effect of the application shall terminate by publication of 
an opening order in the Federal Register specifying the date and time 
of opening; upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance 
to such mineral interest; or two years from the date of publication of 
this notice, whichever occurs first.

David McIlnay,
Chief, Lands Section.
[FR Doc. 00-24921 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-150441, No. 333-127900 and No. 333-127899) of Warner Music Group Corp. of our reports dated November 24, 2009, with respectto the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Warner Music Group Corp., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Warner Music Group Corp., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedSeptember 30, 2009. 

New York, NY 

November 24, 2009 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP
|                                                                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                              
|Texas - RRC District 8A Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                                                              
|Texas - RRC District 8A Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5      | 82     | 38     | 34    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 82     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
From: Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US

To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Gabrielle Stevens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/07/2012 12:42 PM Subject: Emails in relation to EO 13563 12866 Interagency comments:CSAPR Amendment Final Rule
John
-- third set of emails Rick Haeuber, Ph.D. USEPA (6204J) Clean Air Markets Division haeuber.richard@epa.gov 202
- 343
- 9250 http://www.twitter.com/EPAairmarkets http://www.facebook.com/EPAairmarkets

----- Forwarded by Richard Hae uber/DC/USEPA/US on 02/07/2012 12:41 PM
----- From: Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US To: Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov Cc: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/30/2012 09:21 AM Subject: EO 13563 12866 Review: 2 CSAPR Amendment Rules Good morning Christine , Weare still planning on OMB clearance for the revisions rule on Tuesday (1/31). Could you let me know when yo u anticipate clearance, or if there are any specific issues to be addressed for clearance? Thanks Rick Haeuber, Ph.D. USEPA (6204J) Clean Air Markets Division haeuber.richard@epa.gov 202
- 343
- 9250 http://www.twitter.com/EPAairmarkets http://www.facebook.com/EPAairmarkets

----- Forwarded by Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US on 02/07/2012 12:41 PM
----- From: Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US To: Christin e_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov Cc: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/30/2012 01:33 PM Subject: EO 13563 12866 Review: 2 CSAPR Amendment Rules Christine, I understand that there have been some discussions and that clearance is likely somewhere around February 3. W e still hope to receive a list of any specific issues to be addressed for clearance as soon as yo u are able to provide them. Thanks Rick Haeuber, Ph.D. USEPA (6204J) Clean Air Markets Divisionhaeuber.richard@epa.gov

202
- 343
- 9250 http://www.twitter .com/EPAairmarkets http://www.facebook.com/EPAairmarkets