alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                               
|                                                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                                                         
|                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                            
|Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves New Field Discoveries (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
<Page>


PAGE 30


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1.4


                           RENCO STEEL HOLDINGS, INC.
                         30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA SUITE 4225
                                NEW YORK NY 10112

                                                                    212-541-6000
                                                          FACSIMILE 212-541-6197


                           RENCO STEEL HOLDINGS, INC.

                      8.75% PROMISSORY NOTE DUE UPON DEMAND

$1,100,000

                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Renco Steel Holdings,
Inc., an Ohio corporation ("Renco Steel"), hereby promises to pay to the order
of The Renco Group, Inc., a New York corporation ("Renco"), the principal amount
of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,100,000) together with interest,
compounded monthly, on the principal amount hereof and accrued interest at the
rate of 8.75% per annum from the date hereof until paid, such interest to be
payable together with the principal amount upon demand by Renco, which demand
may be made at any time.

                  The undersigned may prepay, at any time, the entire balance of
principal and interest owed under this Note without penalty or premium of any
nature.

                  Renco's right to payment pursuant to this Note is hereby
contractually subordinated in right of payment to Renco Steel's obligations
under Renco Steel's 10 7/8% Senior Secured Notes, due 2005.

                  Should the indebtedness represented by this Note be placed in
the hands of attorneys for collection, the undersigned agrees to pay, in
addition to the principal and interest due and payable hereon, all costs of
collecting this Note, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

                  This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York.

                  This note is dated July 30, 2001

                                             RENCO STEEL HOLDINGS, INC.


                                             By: /s/ Ira L. Rennert
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  Ira L. Rennert
                                                Title: Chairman
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of Aries Maritime  Transport  Limited (the
"Company")  on Form 20-F for the year ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Richard J.H.  Coxall,  Chief  Financial  Officer 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:

        (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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: June 30, 2006

/s/ Richard J.H. Coxall
---------------------------
Richard J.H. Coxall
Chief Financial Officer

SK 23248 0002 683173
August 31, 2015

Dear Mr. Shelton:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-1751). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and t ypes(i.e. - fixed-wing,rotorcraft, lighter-thanair) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/14/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5249 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5249

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on Desmodur RF-E.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on Desmodur RF-E.

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

SECTION 1. DESMODUR RF-E.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.17 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Desmodur RF-E) is amended--
            (1) by amending the article description to read as follows: 
        ``Polyisocyanate cross linking agent products containing 
        tris(4-isocyanatophenyl)thiophosphate (CAS No. 4151-51-3) in 
        solvents (provided for in subheading 3824.90.28)''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (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>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6674 

MICHAEL P. WILLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL A. BRAXTON, Warden; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:05-cv-00679-gec)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael P. Wills, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael P. Wills seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

orders are 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wills has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Western District of Texas

Motion Offense. LLC 

Dropbox, Inc. 

Defendant Dropbox. Inc. 

05/16/2023 

G 

6:20-cv-00251-ADA 

Attorney's signature 

Brittany Blueitt Amadi. DC 1015271. VA 80078 

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Brittany.Amadi@wilmerhale.com 

(202) 663-6022 

(202) 663-6363 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 358 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anibal Marrero, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), rendered March 1, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Jordan, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to suppress identification testimony which was the product of a station house showup. The complainant, who was robbed in his apartment by three men, viewed the defendant together with two alleged accomplices in a room at the station house. The complainant identified the accomplices but did not identify the defendant either at the showup or at the trial. The defendant nevertheless contends that he was unduly prejudiced by the court’s failure to suppress identification testimony involving the accomplices. We find this argument to be without merit. Furthermore, we note that the accomplices, who pleaded guilty prior to the defendant’s trial, testified on his behalf and admitted their complicity in the robbery.

During the same station house showup, the complainant’s nephew identified the defendant. The court properly denied suppression of the nephew’s identification testimony. The nephew knew the defendant prior to the crimes. Therefore, the showup was in the nature of a confirmation and the issue *560of suggestive police procedure was not relevant *(see, People v Tas,*51 NY2d 915; *People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543; *People v Stewart,*144 AD2d 601).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). The testimony of the defendant’s alibi witnesses and the two accomplices presented issues of credibility for the jury, and its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86).

The defendant’s contention with respect to the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]).

Finally, we find that the defendant’s sentence is not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46563

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LISA RENEE JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: May 20, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of two years, for driving under the influence, affirmed; order 

denying I.C.R. 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Lisa Renee Jackson pled guilty to driving under the influence. Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 

18-8005(9). The district court sentenced Jackson to a unified term of six years with two years 

determinate. Jackson appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

an excessive sentence and by failing to retain jurisdiction either at sentencing or in denying her 

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Jackson’s Rule 35 motion. A 

motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to 

the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); 

State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 

motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional 

information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. 

Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including 

any new information submitted with Jackson’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of 

discretion has been shown. 

Therefore, Jackson’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order 

denying Jackson’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.
|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                              
|Texas - RRC District 8A Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                              
|Texas - RRC District 8A Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 13     | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 18 6

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)