alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
^ UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C

Drak e Aeria l Enterprises , LL C d/b/ aAi r Americ a Aeria l Ad s an dJame s Mille r Complainant , Cit y o f Clevelan d Respondent . FA A Docke t No . 16-09-0 2

"T;. : NOTIC E O F EXTENSIO N O F TIM E Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RSectio n 16.11(a) , th e Directo r doe s hereb y exten dth e dat e thaCth e § Director' s initia l determinatio n wil l b e rendered , i n th e above reference dcase , to o n o r before February 19,2010 . A n extensio n o f

tim e i s essentia l fo

r afai r an dcomplet e hearing o f th e matte r

befor e th e agency . 

## ^c^f^ ^ FE B - 2 

### 2C1 0 Randal l S . Fiert z Director , Offic e o f

Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s Dat eCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n February ^ ,2010. 1 cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid) , atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t addresse dto : Rebecc aE . Dupui s Natha n A . Hal l Shumaker , Loo p & Kendrick , LL P North Courthous e Squar e 100 0 Jackso n Stree t Toledo , O H 4360 4

Counse l for

Complainan t Edwar dW . Saue r Charle s F . Donley , I

I Squire , Sander s & Dempse y L.L.P . 120 1 Pennsylvani aAvenue , N W Washington , D C 2000 4 Robert J . Triozz i City o f Clevelan dDepartmen t

o f Law 60 1 Lakesid e Avenue , Roo m10 6 Cleveland , O H 4411 4

Counse l for

Responden t Han dDelivere dto : Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

Arin e Torgerso n Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an d Fiel dOperation s
Order entered April 15, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00376-CV

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, Appellant

V.

RICHARD J. ADDANTE, Ph.D., Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-03174

ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed on April 6, 2020. Pages 599-601 do not relate 

to this case. Accordingly, we STRIKE the clerk’s record. We ORDER Dallas 

County Clerk John Warren to file, by April 23, 2020, a corrected clerk’s record.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. 

Warren and all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

JUSTICE
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Louisiana Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Louisiana Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 283    |        |        |        |        | 156    | 194    | 514    | 335   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 40     | 13     | -232   | 551    | 591    | -46    | 577    | 29     | -287   | 597   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | -239   | 278    | 116    | 278    | -13    | 156    | 95     | 216    | -96    | 303   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | -693   | 126    | 628    | 10     | 540    | -1,678 | 1,122  | 7,566  | -1,309 | -2,186
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 951    | -8,107 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Joe ANDREWS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27215

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1954.

Roy A. Scott, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for murder; the punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

The record shows without dispute that appellant killed the deceased by cutting him with a knife.

Appellant’s plea was that of self-defense and the issue as to whether he killed the deceased in defending himsef, after being attacked by the deceased, or he did so-without justification or excuse, was closely drawn. Witnesses for the state gave testimony which supports the jury’s ver.-'dict, while the testimony of appellant’s, '.witnesses shows self-defense.

Bill of Exception No. 2 reveals that appellant was arrested in California and returned to Corpus Christi by Police Officer Bill Cruz, who had made an investigation of the killing at the scene thereof. Officer Cruz testified as a witness for the state, and was examined in the absence of the jury in order that the admissibility of certain testimony might be passed upon. Cruz was then asked “Now, do you know where this murder weapon is, where the knife is?”

Appellant’s objection to the question was sustained, the information upon which the witness would base his answer having been obtained .from -the defendant while he .was. under arrest

*431The jury was then returned to the courtroom, and the identical question which the court had excluded was propounded to the witness in their presence, and while áppellant’s counsel was making his objection and before he had' time to complete it, the witness answered that the knife was in Nueces Bay.

Appellant moved for mistrial upon the ground that the answer was of such prejudicial nature that the attempt to withdraw same from the consideration of the jury could not cure the damage.

'[1] We cannot agree with the state’s contention that the error in producing such-testimony, despite the court’s ruling, was harmless. If the killing was justified as' in defense of life and person, the weapon would not normally have been so disposed of. If a wanton murder had been committed, the killer might well have been expected to dispose of the weapon where it could not be found.

' The conduct of the prosecution appears-to have been wilful and in disregard of the court’s ruling. The effect of the question and answer was to place in the balance, against appellant’s claim of self-defense, the fact that he said he threw the .murder weapon in the Bay. The result was to deprive the appellant of a fair and impartial trial and the court should have .responded-to appellant’s motion and declared a'mis-, trial. • ■ • -

The summoning of the venire and the making of' a return thereon appear to liave been sóméwhat irregular. The officer’s return on the special venire writ should have been complete and in accord with Art. 598, V.A.C.C.P.

The argument .of counsel complained of will not, we trust, be repeated upon another trial.,

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. ‘ ■ '
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5111 

To suspend temporarily the duty on copper peptide (AHK-Cu). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. HIMES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on copper peptide (AHKCu). 

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

3 SECTION 1. COPPER PEPTIDE (AHK-CU). 

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 Copper peptide (AHK-Cu) 

(CAS No. 126828–32–8) 

(provided for in subheading 2933.29.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5111 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40531

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO ALANIS-GONZALES, also known as Adrian Mungia,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-645-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Sergio

Alanis-Gonzales (Alanis) on appeal has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Alanis has not responded to

counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of the brief, the supplemental letter

brief, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this

appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
No. 04-40531

-2-

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas 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                                                                                                                            | 336    | 8      | 66     | 63     | 24     | 31     | 4      | 298    | 19     | 54    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 393    | 6,760  | 1      | 4      | 248    | 188    | 9      | 8      | 5,848  | 195   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 177    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 79    
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 92     | 86     | 119    | 121    | 119    | 111    | 119    | 115    | 106    | 94    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 104    | 101    | 92     | 92     | 98     | 94     | 119    | 98     | 93     | 158   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 161    | 189    | 238    | 236    | 235    | 285    | 385    | 367    | 366    |       
|- = 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 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

      In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Key Gold
Corporation ("Registrant"), for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Anderson, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and
Director of Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 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 Registrant.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Key Gold
Corporation and will be retained by Key Gold Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date:  April 15, 2005                   /s/ John Anderson
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                        Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of
                                        Key Gold Corporation, Registrant
Skip to Content

E-mail Updates

A to Z IndexSite MapFAQsAbout BLSContact Us

          - Home
          - Subject Areas
          - Databases & Tables
          - Publications
          - Economic Releases
          - Beta

**What's New****Release Calendar**

          - INFLATION                - Consumer Price Index
            - Producer Price Indexes
            - Import/Export Price Indexes
            - Employment Cost Index
            - Contract Escalation
            - International Consumer Price Indexes
            - Price Index Research
            - INFLATION & PRICES OVERVIEW   
          - SPENDING                - Consumer Expenditures 
            - How Americans Spend Time 
            - Consumer Spending Overview   
          - UNEMPLOYMENT                - National Unemployment Rate 
            - State and Local Unemployment Rates 
            - International Unemployment Rates
            - Mass Layoffs 
            - Unemployment Research 
            - UNEMPLOYMENT OVERVIEW   
          - EMPLOYMENT                - National Employment 
            - State and Local Employment 
            - State and County Employment 
            - Worker Characteristics 
            - Employment Projections 
            - Job Openings and Labor Turnover 
            - Employment by Occupation 
            - Work Experience Over Time 
            - Business Employment Dynamics 
            - International Employment Comparisons
            - Employment Research
            - EMPLOYMENT OVERVIEW   
          - PAY & BENEFITS                - Employment Costs 
            - National Compensation Data 
            - Wages by Area and Occupation 
            - Earnings by Demographics
            - Earnings by Industry 
            - County Wages 
            -  Benefits 
            - International Compensation Costs
            - Compensation Research
            - Strikes and Lockouts 
            - Pay & Benefits Overview   
          - PRODUCTIVITY                - Labor Productivity and Costs 
            - Multifactor Productivity 
            - International Productivity
            - Productivity Research
            - Productivity Overview   
          - INJURIES

# Occupational Employment Statistics

PRINT:

OES 

## Occupational Employment Statistics

            - OES Homepage
            - OES Overview
            - OES FAQ
            - Contact OES

Freedom of Information Act  |  Privacy & Security Statement  |  Disclaimers  |  Customer Survey  |  Important Web Site Notices

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics  |  Division of Occupational Employment Statistics, PSB Suite 2135, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20212-0001

www.bls.gov/OES | Telephone: 1-202-691-6569 | Contact OES
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRANDON JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

REGAN LEIGH JOHNSON,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00162

- CV

Appeal from

29th District Court

of Palo Pinto County, Texas

(TC # 44,689

- C)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal. We further order

that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Munoz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered on June 12, 1987, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 15 years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply *225for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5211 

To suspend temporarily the duty on benzenesulfonyl chloride. 

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 benzenesulfonyl chloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BENZENESULFONYL CHLORIDE. 

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 Benzenesulfonyl chloride 

(CAS No. 98–09–9) (provided for in subheading 

2904.10.08) ....................... 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 5211 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