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 Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Pennsylvania Shale Proved Reserves Adjustments (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 450   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 235    | 253    | -63    | 953    | 3,760  | 4,017  | -731   | -196   | 3,728  | -584  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -2,388 | -601   |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

Pamela Holbrook Booker, * From the 70th District Court of Ector County, Trial Court No. A

- 21

- 10

- 1200

- CV

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 0 99

- C V * October 12 , 202 3

Permian Agency, Inc.; * Memorand um Opinion by Trotter, J. John R. Mc K enzie; (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., and Xiaorong Zheng, Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed

. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, Appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Pamela Holbrook

Booker.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Timothy J. Tegeler  |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy                J. Tegeler      |   |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer |   |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144437 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144437 

 COA: 296546 

Saginaw CC: 08-031799-FC 

KENDRICK DEON STANTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1699

AMRIK HENDIAZAD; SEEMIN HENDIAZAD , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 01270

- CMH

- TCB )

Submitted : March 31, 2023 Decided: April 27, 2023

Before DIAZ and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Amrik Hendiazad , Seemin Hendiazad , Appellants Pro Se. John Curtis Lynch , TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP , Virginia Beach, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza , GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP , McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Amrik and Seemin Hendiazad appeal the district court’s order denying the ir motion

to remand their case to state court following removal and granting the Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the action on res judicata grounds. We affirm.
We review de novo both a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and its denial of a motion to remand to state court. See Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville , 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018) (motion to dismi ss);
Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 709 F.3d 362, 366 (4th Cir. 2013) (motion to remand). We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the Hendiazads’ motion to remand to state court, as the complaint established federal question jurisdiction

. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1331, 1441(a); North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. , 853 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir. 2017). We also discern no reversible error in the district court’s finding that res judicata barred the Hendiazads’ action. See D uckett v. Full er , 819 F.3d 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2016) (listing elements of res judicata). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-1699 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**I, David Wall, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Altra Industrial Motion, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s year ended December 31, 2006 that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.6. This annual report does not include an attestation report of the registrant’s registered publicaccounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was notsubject to attestation by the registrant’s registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporaryrules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the registrant to provide onlymanagement’s report in this annual report.       Date:March 19, 2007   By: /s/ David Wall           Name: David Wall    Title: Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry (#1191).                    

*Date and Time:*                         October 23-24, 2000, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Orgonne National Lab, Chicago, IL.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Joan M. Frye, National Science Foundation contact person, Telephone (703) 292-4953 and Dr. P. James Viccaro, University of Chicago contact person, Telephone (773) 702-1598.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning a proposal for renewed support of the Institute for Chemistry.                    

*Agenda:*                         Listen to presentations and discuss merits of proposal.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposal being reviewed includes information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: September 27, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-25199  Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report dated March 10, 2006,accompanying the consolidated financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and subsidiaries on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005 and our report dated March 10, 2006 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to economic operational dependency on its parent) related to the financialstatements of Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in Registration Statement No. 333-117037 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 333-128072, 333-124090, 333-117828,333-112490 and 333-103671 on Form S-8. 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Irvine, California 

March 10, 2006
*

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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 03-10564

__________________________

AZTECA ENTERPRIZES, INC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT,

Defendant - Appellee.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(No. 3:99-CV-281-M)

___________________________________________________

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Azteca Enterprizes, Inc. (“Azteca”), appeals the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (“DART”). Because we find no error with the district

court’s opinion, we affirm.2

This appeal concerns alleged discrimination during the awarding of a 1998 DART

contract for delivery of concrete cross-ties for use in DART’s light rail line. Azteca argues

that the district court and the administrative law judge erred in finding that Azteca did not

meet the requirements specified in DART’s solicitation and in t h e contract itself. The

administrative law judge’s thorough findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and we

see no reason to disturb the finding that Azteca was not a “responsible bidder” as required

by the contract. Azteca further argues that, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, it was

subjected to disparate treatment by DART and that the solicitation process had a disparate

impact on Hispanic contractors. Azteca’s disparate treatment claim fails because the other

bidders did meet the PCI certification requirement as specified in the solicitation and in

the contract, while Azteca did not meet that requirement. Azteca’s disparate impact claim

fails because Azteca provided no evidence that Hispanics experienced a disparate impact

as a result of DART’s 1998 cross-ties contracting process.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|California (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|California (with State off) Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (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                                                                                                                            |        | 0      | 248    | 0      | 4      | 10     | 4      | 0      | 1      | W     
|- = 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. 5209 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain window shade material composed 

of 100% polyester filaments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain window shade 

material composed of 100% polyester filaments. 

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 WINDOW SHADE MATERIAL COM4 POSED OF 100% POLYESTER FILAMENTS. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5209 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Window shade material 

composed of 100% polyester filaments warp knit 

weighing 160 grams per 

square meter with a DIN 

4107 B1 fire rating (provided for in subheading 

6005.32.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-16-00579- CR
Chad Alan Cappiello a/ k/a Chad Russell, App ellant
v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 716 41, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Chad Alan Cappiello seeks to ap p e a l f r o m a n o r d e r o f d e f

e r r e d a d judication for theft. See Tex. Penal C ode § 31.03. The trial court has cer tified that (1) this is a plea-bar g ain
case and Cappiello has no rig ht of appea l, and (2) Cappiello has waived the rig ht of appea l. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 11, 2016 Do Not Publish
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. RP00-564-000]

Take notice that on September 25, 2000, Blue Lake Gas Storage Company (Blue Lake) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective March 27, 2000.

Blue Lake states that the purpose of the filing is to incorporate changes to conform to the new regulations under Section 284.8(i), governing standards for Ceiling Rates for Short Term Capacity Releases.

Blue Lake states that copies of the filing were served upon the company's Jurisdictional customers.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies                           ( print page 59179)                        of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25414 Filed 10-03-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M