alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 50     | 76     | 48    
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 116    | 61     | 87     | 181    | 146    | 105    | 180    | 215    | 118    | 202   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 100    | 163    | 182    | 98     | 147    | 107    | 96     | 205    | 596    | 761   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 207    | 128    | 114    | 148    | 200    | 122    | 101    | 321    | 1,249  | 1,912 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,072  | 631    | 1,754  | 560    | 171    | 231    | 268    | 869    | 82     | 77    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 143    | 1,514  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 5214 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Himic Anhydride. 

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 Himic Anhydride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HIMIC ANHYDRIDE. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Himic Anhydride (CAS 

No. 826–62–0) (provided 

for in subheading 

2917.20.00) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5214 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7698

DAVID CHARLES WILLIS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

NEWMAN, Officer; GOINS; FRANCIS, Sgt.; RANSOM, Officer; 

LAWSON, Sgt.; KILLINSON, Officer; DOCTOR MUSSELMAN; JENKINS, 

Lt.; MOORE, Capt.; BRUBAKER, Major, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:08-cv-00422-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David Charles Willis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

David Charles Willis appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Willis v. Newman, No. 7:08-cv00422-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. July 28, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
R-141 

## ~~ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF TEXAS

4pril 15, 1947
Honorable Sam Sellera, PenitentiaryCommittee, House of Representatives, Austin, Texas opinionNo, v-142 Be: **Validity ai**  House Bill Ne, 215 authorizing the Priaon 3yatemtp bid on contract e for priatim&, binding stationexy and eupplies of like oharaoter with : the Board 0r **Control.**
You have requested an opinion from this orrice as to the ralldity or Heuse Bilk No, 215.

Ganerally,the bill meets the constitutional requirements**ot being**  **limited to**  **one subject**  which is expressed in its title, and of being sufrioiently certain and definite it ita terms. **SpeoifiCally,** ArticleXVI, Seotion 21 Of the Constitutionof Texas directs that all printing and binding used by the various departmentsof the State "shall be perforined

under contractto be given to the lowest re- ,sponsible

**bidder, o**  **L o**  **under** suOh reguJ,at$.eae s shal.J be prescribedby lawp* The constitutional provisionvery clearly leaves it to the Legislatureto prescribewho may be *the lowest responsible bidder" within the aonetitu**tlonal** requlremento At present,Article 608, R.C.S. preecribes,the

methods to be used in the award of this type of+ aontract,and defines *the lowest responsiblebidilsr* aa used in the Constitution as corporations

or associatioas*n"responsible peraens,rirma, House Bill 215 is assigned to tinlarge

this derinitionto iacluds the State Prima Board and, beoause such Beard 48 an agency of the State, very properly exempts it rrom the present requirementor .Article

608 that bidders bn these oontraetsshall make bzuldc .',.

It is the opinion or this office that there is no specific legal objectionto the Legislatureautherizing the Prison Bear& to bid on printing contractswithHonorable Sara Sellem - Page 2

the Board or Controlas providedby the House Bill presented. Accordingly, you are advised that House Bill No. 215 would be valid if enacted.

There is no legal objeotionto House Bill No. 215, which authorizesthe Prison Board to bid on contractsror Stateprinting ana supplies. The bill would be valid if enacteb. Tours very truly, ATTORNEY GhmRAL ,OF TEXAS

JL:wb

APPROVEDAPRIL 15, 1947
ZL Qhi!d ATTORN2XGF3ERA.L

OF TFXAS
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Colorado Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Colorado Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 15    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 18     | 34     | 46     | 192    | 95     | 26     | 2      | 14     | 58     | 12    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 5      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C.

Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002



In connection with the Annual Reportof Citadel Broadcasting
Corporation (theCompany) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randy L. Taylor, Vice President-Finance of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: March 14, 2005



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/  RANDY L. TAYLOR                  
|Randy L. Taylor Vice PresidentFinance



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Citadel Broadcasting Corporation and will be retained by Citadel Broadcasting Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Concrete Casting
      Incorporated (the "COMPANY"), for the quarterly period ended September 30,
      2005,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "REPORT"), I, Cordell Henrie, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify,
      to
      my knowledge that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); 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/
      Cordell Henrie





Cordell
      Henrie


Principal
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer





Dated:
      February 17, 2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Concrete Casting Incorporated and will be retained by Concrete Casting
      Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
#### DURBON v. STATE.

No. 24336.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1949.

H. L. Dillashaw and Joe Burkett, both of San Antonio, for appellant. ■

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of malicious mischief and fined $25.00.

The charge is made by complaint and information that the appellant did “wilfully and mischievously, injure and destroy real property of the value of. Two Thousand Dollars by then and there breaking a door, ****1 The evidence discloses that appellant was engaged in business and had sold to the prosecuting witnesses, husband and wife, a washing machine and also a dish washer. The dealings in regard to them were brought into the record with testimony quite in conflict. The husband was out of the city-, and the wife had gone up town when appellant, under a claim of right to do so by reason of a written contract, went to the home with two assistants and took from it a washing machine. According to his testimony, and that of his-assistants, the front gate was locked, also the front door to the house, but the back door nearest the Washing machine was unlocked. He denied breaking anything or that he used any means of forcing entrance to the premises. The next door neighbor who was working in his yard a few feet away corroborated such testimony by his evidence that he heard no noise whatsoever at the time they were there. The mere circumstance that there was some injury to the property is not sufficient, under the facts of this case, to support the charge laid in the complaint. The machine was taken from the back door and there is no evidence that this door was injured while making the entry, though the prosecuting witness, Mrs. Ward, did testify that she left the door locked. Whatever injury there was to the front door or side door is not described and in the absence of proof that a door was broken there is a definite conflict between the allegation and the proof. It is true that there are conclusions found in the information and complaint that an injury resulted, but the chárge of malicious mischief is based on the allegation that he broke a door. The record before us contains no proof whatever that he broke a door, or that he was the person who inflicted such injury as the witnesses referred to.

For the variance between the allegation and the proof, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5252 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5252

 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on dimethyl carbonate polymer 
             with 1,6-hexanediol copolymer and 2-oxepanone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on dimethyl carbonate polymer 
             with 1,6-hexanediol copolymer and 2-oxepanone.

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

SECTION 1. DIMETHYL CARBONATE POLYMER WITH 1,6-HEXANEDIOL COPOLYMER AND 
              2-OXEPANONE.

    (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        Dimethyl carbonate  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          polymer with 1,6-                                                 12/31/2015
                          hexanediol
                          copolymer and 2-
                          oxepanone (CAS
                          No. 282534-15-0)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3907.99.01)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6873

FREDERICK JAMES DEXTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-99-1)

Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick James Dexter, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Frederick James Dexter appeals from a district court order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).

Dexter asserts that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) erred in finding

him ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3621(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998). The BOP found that Dexter’s offense

was not considered a “nonviolent offense” because he had received

a two-level enhancement under U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (1992), for possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.

While Dexter’s appeal was pending, however, the BOP revised

its definition of “nonviolent offense,” explicitly including possession of a firearm in its determination of disqualifying offenses. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (1997). Accordingly, Dexter’s case

is governed by our recent decision in Pelissero v. Thompson, ___

F.3d ___, 1998 WL 559663 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998) (Nos. 97-6156,

97-6221) (holding that revised § 550.58 applies to cases pending on

the date of enactment and is a valid exercise of the BOP’s discretion under § 3621(e)). We therefore affirm the district court’s

denial of relief. 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7703

LARRY E. PATTERSON

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

ELMO A. REID, JR.; JAMES R. CLARK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TIMOTHY M. KAINE, Governor of the State of Virginia, sued in 

his official and individual capacity; JOHN W. MARSHALL, 

Secretary of Public Safety of Virginia, sued in his official 

and individual capacity; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairperson of the 

Virginia Parole Board, sued in her official and individual 

capacity,

Defendants – Appellees,

___________________________

DEREK T. FRITZINGER; MELVIN C. DODSON,

Movants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00490-JRS)

Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry E. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Larry E. Patterson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for relief judgment, filed pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b). On appeal, we confine our review to the 

issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Patterson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis 

for the district court’s disposition, Patterson has forfeited

appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 22.1**

**Advanced LifeSciences Holdings, Inc.2006 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS**

**CERTIFICATE ANDREPORT OF INSPECTOR OF ELECTION**

The undersignedInspector of Election appointed to act at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders ofAdvanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc., held at 1440 Davey Road, Woodridge,IL  60517, at 11:00 a.m. Local Timeon May 2, 2006 does hereby certify that:

1.      Themeeting was held at the time and place specified above.

2.      Out of28,226,763 shares of Common Stock entitled to vote at such meeting, there werepresent in person or by proxy 20,957,534 shares.

3.      The vote for the proposals was as follows:

**Proposal No.1:   Election of Directors**

| Name              | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **For** | ** ** | **Withheld** | ** ** |
|-------------------|------------|------------|------------|---------|------------|--------------|------------|
| Terry W. Osborn   |       | 20,931,934 |       |    | 25,600     |         |       |
| Israel Rubinstein |       | 20,957,434 |       |    | 100        |         |       |

 

**Proposal No. 2:   Ratification of theselection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registeredpublic accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006.**

|            | **For** | ** ** | ** ** | **Against** | ** ** | **Abstain** | ** ** |
|------------|---------|------------|------------|-------------|------------|-------------|------------|
| 20,957,534 |    |       | 0          |        |       |        | 0          |   |   |
|            |         |            |            |             |            |             |            |  |  |  |  |

 

The undersigned Inspector hereby certifies that theforegoing is a true, accurate and correct report of the results of voting atthe Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.,held on May 2, 2006.

Executedas of the 5th day of May 2006.

|        | Inspector:                              |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ MICHAEL J. COGAN                    |
|   | Michael J. Cogan, Inspector of Election |

 

----