alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Kansas Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Kansas Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (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                                                                                                                            | 202    | 274    | 45     | 245    | 147    | 47     | 19     | 69     | 17     | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 17     | 132    | 952    | 30     | 1,147  | 3      | 327    | 498    | 5      | 750   
|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
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Texas--RRC District 2 onsh Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Texas--RRC District 2 onsh Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (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                                                                                                                            | 2      | 38     | 210    | 357    | 1,402  | 0      | 269    | 84     | 243    | 522   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 231    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED
EARNINGS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          51,278
<SECURITIES>                                       961
<RECEIVABLES>                                  214,907<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                    421,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               696,508
<PP&E>                                         115,767<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          469,624
<BONDS>                                        197,066
<COMMON>                                         3,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,371
<SALES>                                        587,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               587,568
<CGS>                                          539,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  539,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,132
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61
<FN>
<F1>SHOWN NET IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<F2>NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY UNDER MATERIALITY GUIDELINES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**Officer Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of SPS on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(Form 10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of the SPS certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)                      TheForm 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                       Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of SPS as of thedates   and for the periodsexpressed in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date: May 1, 2006                           |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
| /s/ GARY L.  GIBSON                         |   |
| Gary L.  Gibson                             |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                                        |
| /s/ BENJAMIN  G.S. FOWKE III                |   |
| Benjamin  G.S. Fowke III                    |
| Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                             |  |  |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this statement required bySection 906, has been provided to SPS and will be retained by SPS and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Case 6:20-cv-00362-ADA Document 11 Filed 10/09/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 6:20-cv-00362-ADA Document 11 Filed 10/09/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 6:20-cv-00362-ADA Document 11 Filed 10/09/20 Page 3 of 3
#### POSEY v. STATE.

No. 23173.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1945.

C. O. McMillan and Joseph A. Chandler, both of Stephenville, for appellant.

Sam Cleveland, Dist. Atty., of Stephen-ville, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted upon indictment alleging robbery with firearms and under the further charge that he had been previously convicted in the District Court of Wise County of an offense of which the penalty of death was affixed as an alternate punishment, to-wit, “the offense of robbery” and that said conviction was final. He plead not guilty and testifying in his own behalf set up the defense of alibi, which was duly submitted to the jury. The penalty of life imprisonment was assessed.

There can be no contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and the only bill of exception which will be discussed complains of the failure of the court to quash the indictment. For the purpose of enhancing the penalty, the indictment, in addition to alleging the offense for which he is being charged, set forth a prior conviction in Wise County as above stated but failed to allege that the robbery for which he was convicted was by the üse of firearms. It did say that it was an offense for which death might have been assessed as an alternate punishment. There is no other robbery for which this penalty will attach than by the use of firearms.- It must follow that the robbery in Wise County was by the use of firearms¡ The important thing in that case under the allegation is that he was tried and convicted for an offense in which the alternate punishment was death. That allegation is specifically made in the indictment. The question raised is definitely settled by this court in the case of Palmer v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 293, *81*S.W.2d *76.*See also Whittle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 179 S.W.2d 569.

The appellant has filed a very forceful brief in which it is argued that the opinion in Blake v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 180 S.W.2d 351, should have the effect of overruling Palmer v. State, supra, and Whittle v. State, supra. We do not think the Blake case could be so construed. We have no intention of receding in the least from our conclusion in the Blake case, but simply feel that it does not apply in the matter before us. A discussion leading to this conclusion would hardly seem to be neces*393sary and, though it is tempting to discuss a matter so interestingly presented by brief, we are refraining from doing so in order to avoid possible involvement which would not contribute to the jurisprudence of our State.

Other questions are raised which are definitely not tenable and are passed without discussion.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 June 2006

(2006/C 147/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5164 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5164

To suspend temporarily the duty on nonenumerated footwear with textile 
uppers for women, other than house slippers, valued $13/pair or higher.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mrs. Maloney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on nonenumerated footwear with textile 
uppers for women, other than house slippers, valued $13/pair or higher.

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

SECTION 1. NONENUMERATED FOOTWEAR WITH TEXTILE UPPERS FOR WOMEN, OTHER 
              THAN HOUSE SLIPPERS, VALUED $13/PAIR OR HIGHER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00         Nonenumerated      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          footwear with                                                     12/31/2015
                          textile uppers
                          for women, other
                          than house
                          slippers, valued
                          $13/pair or
                          higher (provided
                          for in subheading
                          6405.20.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 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>
```
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Deparbnent of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

rwEDICAL CERTIFICATE SECOND CL.I\SS 

This certifies that (FuH ~U~me and address): 

JASON ADRIAN WHITLEY 

849 Almar Ave 132 

Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA 

Date of Birth 

01122/1976 

Sex 

M 

has met the medical standards prescribed in part 67, Federal Aviation 

R ulations for this dassof Medical Certificate. 

None 

FAA Fonn 85Q0..9 (9-011) Suptorsudll$ Previous Ecition NSN: OOS2-oo.&7t>-7002 

CONDITIONS OF ISSUE 

The holder of this certificate must: 

• Have it in his or her personal possession at all times 

while exercising privileges of an airman certificate. 

(14CFR § 61.3) 

s Understand that the issuance of a medical certificate 

by an Aviation Medical Examiner may be reversed by 

the FAA. within 60 days. 

(14CFR § 67.407) 

• Comply with validity standards specified for first-, 

second-, and third-dass medical certificates. 

(14CFR § 61.23) 

• Comply with any statement of functional, operational, 

and/or time limitation issued as a condition of 

certification. 

(14CFR § 67.401) 

(Note: A letter of authorization (or SODA) desaibing 

any such limitations must be kept with this certificate 

at all times while exercising the privileges of an airman 

certificate.) 

• Comply with the standards relating to prohibitions on 

operation during medical deficiency. 

(14CFR §§ 61.53, 63.19, and 65.49) 

For International Operations Only: Some holders may be 

affected by certain international medical standards. 

Consult the U.S. Aeronautical Information Publication for 

U.S. differences with ICAO Annex 1 medical standards. 

-----------------------·--- ~-------------------------- -(C:~tan -dash'e'd ii~e"l------------------------------- ·---------------------

AEROSPACE MEDiCAL CERTIFICATION DIVISION, AAM .. 300 

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center 

P .0 Box 26080 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125-9914 

JASON ADRIAN WHITLEY 

849 Almar Ave 132 

Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA 

Dear Airman: 

Above is your new medical certificate. It supersedes any previous one you may have been issued. 

To validate this certificate, it is necessary that you sign it in the space provided (Airman's Signature). 

This certificate must be in your possession at all times while exercising your pilot privileges. 

Created on Wednesdav. F ebruar.v 11. 2015 
URVEY TECHNICIAN 

E R T I F I c A T I 0 

Jason Whitley 

ough knowledge, experience and testing has met the requirements 

established by the Survey Technician Certification Board. 

President~. 

~~ 

Level 

u··~ 

Level I Entry 

Date 

June 29,2015 

Certification Number 

0515-5073 

N 

ST 

HSPS 

ctRTiflfO 

SURUfY 

HCHHICIRH 

6/30/2016 

Expiration Date 
SYSTEM DIVIDENDS, LLC 

GPS Training Certificate 

PRESENTED TO 

Jason Whitley 

FOR THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF 

24 HOURS OF POST PROCESSED & REAL TIME GPS TRAIN

completed on December 11, 2013 

Michael Mcinnis 

System Dividends, LLC 

www.gpstraining.com
#### BURNS v. STATE.

No. 25839.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 23, 1952.

*156No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

■ The offense is driving an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The proceedings appear regular in ’every respect and nothing is presented for review by this court in the absence of bills of exception and statement of : facts.

The judgment is affirmed'.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### BOGGESS v. STATE.

No. 26380.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1953.

Paul Petty, Ballinger, for appellant.

Lawrence Jack Moore, 'Co. Atty., Ballin-ger, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a, conviction for driving while intoxicated upon a public highway; the punishment, a fine of $50.

A highway patrolman, seeing appellant swerve his car from a public highway and into a borrow pit, went immediately to him. The patrolman testified that appellant was intoxicated at the time. A one-fifth bottle of whisky, about a .third of which was gone, was found in' the automobile.

Testifying as a witness in his own behalf, appellant denied that he was intoxicated at the time or had drunk any whisky or other intoxicating beverages. He insisted, and so testified, that he was a diabetic and, as a result of that condition, was subject to black-outs and that such a black-out caused him to lose consciousness and his car to swerve and run into the borrow ditch. Upon cross-examination, appellant, over his objection, was required to testify that at the time of his arrest he did not advise or tell the arresting officer of his diabetic condition or black-out.

Upon rebuttal, the state was permitted to prove by the deputy sheriff into whose custody the appellant was delivered after he had been brought to jail by the patrolman that the appellant at that time made no claim to being a diabetic or subject to black-outs.

Appellant objected to the introduction of such testimony because it was proving his silence, while under arrest, as to matters thereafter relied upon and claimed as a defense.

The rule is well settled that, after arrest, the state cannot avail itself of the silence of the accused as evidence of guilt or as destructive of the explanation of his conduct. 18 Tex.Jur., Evidence-Criminal Cases, Sec. 75, at p. 150; Sharp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 217 S.W.2d 1017; Redding v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 576, 197 S.W.2d 357.

Under the rule stated, the admission of the testimony was error which requires a reversal of the conviction.

Appellant complains because he was not given notice of the state’s motion to substitute the lost complaint in this case. He now has notice of the substitution. If a *112valid objection exists to that action, the appellant may present same upon another trial.

The judgment is reversed and the causé is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
On October 18, 1999, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for grandfathering of non-compliant passenger equipment manufactured by Renfe Talgo of America (Talgo) for use on rail lines between Vancouver, British Columbia and Eugene, Oregon; between Las Vegas, Nevada and Los Angeles, California; and between San Diego, California and San Luis Obispo, California. Notice of receipt of such petition was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 2, 1999, at 64 FR 59230. Interested parties were invited to comment on the petition before the end of the comment period of December 2, 1999.                

                    Through published notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    , FRA has extended the comment period in this proceeding and explained the reasons therefor. FRA most recently extended the comment period until January 31, 2000. See 65 FR 2223; Jan. 13, 2000. By this notice, FRA is further extending the comment period until February 22, 2000. This extension will allow FRA to resolve an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information related to this proceeding, see 65 FR 2223, and permit the requester sufficient time in which to analyze any further documents that may be released by FRA. FRA will place in the docket a copy of any documents provided to the FOIA requester. FRA expects that further extensions of the comment period will not be necessary.                

                    Comments received after February 22, 2000, will be considered to the extent possible. Amtrak's petition, documents inserted in the docket, and all written communications concerning this proceeding are available for examination during regular business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) at DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at                     *http://dms.dot.gov.*

Issued in Washington, D. C. on January 28, 2000.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 00-2551 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P