alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM 

To: File 

From: Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region IX, Air Quality Analysis Office 

Date: May 10, 2013 

RE: South Coast PM2.5 Ambient Air Monitoring Data Completeness 

Complete Quarters*for PM2.5 

Site AQS ID Complete Quarters* for PM2.5 (μg/m3

) 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Azusa 060370002 4 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 4 4 

Burbank – 

Palm Ave. 

060371002 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 

LA – North 

Main 

060371103 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Reseda 060371201 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 

Lynwood 060371301 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 

Compton 060371302 0 4 4 4 4 

Pico Rivera 

#1 

060371601 4 4 4 1 

Pico Rivera 

#2 

060371602 1 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Pasadena 060372005 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 

Long Beach 060374002 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Long Beach 

– PCH 

060374004 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Anaheim 060590007 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 

Mission 

Viejo 

060592022 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Riverside 060651003 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 

Rubidoux 060658001 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Mira Loma 060658005 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 

Ontario 060710025 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Fontana 060712002 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 

Big Bear 060718001 3 4 3 2 1 3 4 4 3 4 3 

San 

Bernardino 

060719004 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 

*A quarter is considered complete if data capture rates are at least 75%. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.0.
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG   Document 37-18   Filed 01/15/21   Page 1 of 1
|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)             
|View History: Annual                                       
|View History: Annual                                       
|View History:                                              
|                                                           
|No chart available.                                        
|No chart available.                                        
|                                                           
|                                                           
|Utah Shale Proved Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Josephine Jeromos, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Queens County,

September 10, 1957.

*295
      *Nathaniel L. Rock*for Irene Steiner, petitioner.

*Frank McGlynn,*special guardian for Andrea Jeromos.

Anthony P. Savarese, S.

In this construction proceeding, petitioner seeks an interpretation of two provisions of the will of Josephine Jeromos, admitted to prohate on December 27, 1956.

The first of the provisions in question is a devise of testatrix’ interest in a parcel of real property to her son Andrew Jeromos, *“*with the condition that he can dispose of the house only to his daughter, Andrea Jeromos and to no one else.” The court construes this provision as a gift of an estate in fee to Andrew Jeromos. The attempt of the testatrix to limit her son’s power of alienation to a specific person is void as repugnant to the nature of the estate created. *(Schermerhorn*v. *Negus,*1 Denio 448; *Hacker*v. *Hacker,*153 App. Div. 270; *Matter of Tallman,*131 Misc. 863.)

Petitioner also seeks construction of a provision by which testatrix directed that the sum of $100, annually, be paid to her daughter, Bozzay Zottanne, out of the income from the real property devised to her son, for a period of six years following her death. Clearly, this provision creates a charge on the interest in said property passing to the son of the testatrix under this will. The portions of this provision purporting to create a charge against interests in real property which did not belong to the testatrix at the time of her death are of course ineffectual. Submit decree construing the will accordingly, on notice.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ANNA GONZALEZ and RONALD K.

PAGE, on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: SA-20-CV-617-FB

PLAINTIFF ANNA GONZALEZ’S STIPULATED NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Anna Gonzalez and 

Defendant State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm”), through their undersigned attorneys, hereby 

agree to the dismissal of Ms. Gonzalez’s claims against State Farm in the above-captioned lawsuit. 

The parties further stipulate that, as it pertains to Ms. Gonzalez, that each party shall bear its own costs 

and attorneys’ fees incurred to date.

Dated: March 22, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Nathaniel C. Giddings 

Nathaniel C. Giddings (admitted pro hac vice)

nigidding@hausfeld.com

James J. Pizzirusso (admitted pro hac vice)

jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

Melinda R. Coolidge (admitted pro hac vice)

mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

HAUSFELD LLP

888 16th Street NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (202) 540-7200

Fax: (202) 540-7201

/s/ Susan E. Egeland 

Wayne B. Mason 

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE 

Texas Bar No. 13158950 

wayne.mason@faegredrinker.com 

Susan E. Egeland 

Texas Bar No. 24040854 

susan.egeland@faegredrinker.com 

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 

1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Phone: (469) 357-2500 

Fax: (469) 327-0860 

Case 5:20-cv-00617-FB-ESC Document 75 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 3
2

Norman E. Siegel (admitted pro hac vice) 

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE 

siegel@stuevesiegel.com 

Ethan M. Lange (Tex. Bar No. 24064150) 

lange@stuevesiegel.com 

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 

460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 

Kansas City, Missouri 64112 

Tel: 816-714-7100 

Fax: 816-714-7101 

John J. Schirger (admitted pro hac vice) 

jschirger@millerschirger.com 

Matthew W. Lytle (admitted pro hac vice) 

mlytle@millerschirger.com 

Joseph M. Feierabend (admitted pro hac vice) 

jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC

4520 Main Street, Suite 1570

Kansas City, Missouri 64111

Tel: 816-561-6500

BY Fax: 816-561-6501

James T. Clancy (Tex. Bar No. 00795292)

(S.D. Tex. Bar. No. 19917)

jclancy@branscomblaw.com

BRANSCOMB, PLLC

802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1900

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0036

Tel: (361) 886-3800

Fax: (361) 886-3805

Shaunda A. Patterson-Strachan 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

Shaunda.pattersonstrachan@faegredrinker.com

Waldemar J. Pflepsen, Jr. 

Waldemar.pflepsen@fagredrinkler.com

FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

1500 K Street, NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 842-8800

Fax: (202) 842-8465

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE 

FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 5:20-cv-00617-FB-ESC Document 75 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 22, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to 

be filed on the Court’s CM/ECF system, which served notice on all counsel of record.

/s/ Nathaniel C. Giddings

Case 5:20-cv-00617-FB-ESC Document 75 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 3
#### Frances Templeton, Plaintiff, *v.*Adar Company, Incorporated, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 18, 1957.

*Myles, Wormser £ Koch*for plaintiff.

*Moses H. Koenig*for defendant.

*227Irving H. Saypol, J.

This motion to vacate the notice to examine the plaintiff’s assignor (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288) must be granted since the proceeding to examine by notice (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 121-a) extends only to party, agent or employee *(Shahmoon*v. *Shahmoon,*N. Y. L. J., April 18, 1956, p. 15, col. 4). This is not indicative of any conclusion on the merits but solely to avoid a moot order *(Manley*v. *Stuart Silver Co.,*203 Misc. 218).
EXHIBIT 12(b)



Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Union Pacific Railroad Company and Consolidated Subsidiary and Affiliate Companies

(Unaudited)



|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|-------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------ | --- | ---- |  | - | -----
|Millions of Dollars, Except Ratios                       |      | Six Months EndedJune 30,
|                                                         | 2004 |                          |     | 2003
|Earnings:                                                |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Income before cumulative effect of accounting change     |      | $                        | 329 |      |  | $ | 462  
|Equity earnings net of distributions                     |      |                          | (26 | )    |  |   | 38   
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Total earnings                                           |      |                          | 303 |      |  |   | 500  
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Income taxes                                             |      |                          | 123 |      |  |   | 273  
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Fixed charges:                                           |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Interest expense including amortization of debt discount |      |                          | 251 |      |  |   | 250  
|Portion of rentals representing an interest factor       |      |                          | 93  |      |  |   | 77   
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Total fixed charges                                      |      |                          | 344 |      |  |   | 327  
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Earnings available for fixed charges                     |      | $                        | 770 |      |  | $ | 1,100
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       |      |                          | 2.2 |      |  |   | 3.4  
|                                                         |      |                          |     |      |  |   |      



28
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5413 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5413

  To suspend temporarily the duty on parts and accessories of optical 
                      instruments and apparatuses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on parts and accessories of optical 
                      instruments and apparatuses.

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

SECTION 1. PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS AND 
              APPARATUSES.

    (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        Parts and           Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          accessories of                                                    12/31/2015
                          optical
                          instruments and
                          apparatuses
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          9027.90.68)......

    (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>
```
Case 5:20-cv-00593-FB Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00593-FB Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00593-FB Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
#### Peggy Brown et al., Respondents, v Village Mobil Service Station, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Galloway, J.), entered on March 28, 1990, which, after a jury trial on liability and a stipulation on damages, awarded plaintiff Peggy Brown damages in the amount of $250,000, and awarded plaintiff Gilberto MatosMorales damages in the amount of $100,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The defendant service station performed an inspection of the brakes of a State-owned automobile. The following day, as the vehicle was being driven by plaintiff Matos, with plaintiff *159Brown and another person as passengers, the brakes "locked”, causing the car to skid and spin into a guardrail.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument on appeal, the plaintiffs were not obliged to prove a precise link between specific flaws in the inspection and the resulting accident, or to eliminate with certainty any but the most remote possibilities inconsistent with a finding of negligence *(see, Archie v Todd Shipyards Corp.,*65 AD2d 699). The plaintiffs’ expert testified that, under the facts, there was no likely cause of the accident other than a negligently performed brake inspection. Contrary testimony from the defendant’s expert raised only a question for the jury *(Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth.,*161 AD2d 132).

A missing witness charge was properly given as to the defendant’s employees, none of whom testified. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing that the garage employees would have information on a material issue, could be expected to provide noncumulative testimony favoring defendant, and would, in a broad sense, be in the defendant’s control *(Cornell Pharmacy v Guzzo,*135 AD2d 1000, 1001, *lv dismissed*71 NY2d 928).

The court’s charge was otherwise proper. The instructions given by the court in their totality adequately set forth the correct legal standards *(Schmeider v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Center,*122 AD2d 735, *lv denied*69 NY2d 605). Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5336 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain forged ring gear components 

and certain other parts of crankshafts and connecting rods. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on certain forged 

ring gear components and certain other parts of crankshafts and connecting rods. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FORGED RING GEAR COMPONENTS 

4 AND CERTAIN OTHER PARTS OF CRANK5 SHAFTS AND CONNECTING RODS. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5336 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Forged ring gear components between 12 and 25 

inches in outer diameter 

and other parts of crankshafts and connecting rods, 

of iron or steel (provided 

for in subheading 

7326.19.00) ....................... 1.5% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Sherwood Coffin et al., as Accounting Trustees of Ida W. Coffin, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

November 7, 1957.

*Richmond L. Brown*for petitioner.

*Duer, Strong & Whitehead*for estate of Willets Coffin.

Maximilian Moss, S.

Testatrix’ will established a trust for the benefit of her daughter with income payable to her during her lifetime and with power to' appoint the principal upon her death. Without specific mention of the power, the daughter, a resident of Connecticut, gave, devised and bequeathed her residuary estate upon a further trust to terminate at the expiration of three new lives. The latter provision suspends the power of alienation for a period longer than is permitted under section 11 of the Personal Property Law and section 42 of the Real Property Law. The court, therefore, holds that there was no valid or effective appointment of the principal of the trust. The court further holds that under the will of the donor of the power the intention expressed therein is to give, devise and bequeath the appointive fund to the surviving issue of the donee in default of a valid or effective appointment by the donee. *(Matter of Terwilligar,*135 Misc. 170, affd. on opinion below 230 App. Div. 763, motion for leave to appeal denied 230 App. Div. 846; *Matter of Peace,*259 App. Div. 838; *Low*v. *Bankers Trust Co.,*270 N. Y. 143; *Montague*v. *Dexter,*111 Misc. 380; *Pross*v. *Anson,*58 N. Y. S. 2d 26; *Matter of Slocum,*192 Misc. 1026; *Matter of Phelps,*45 N. Y. S. 2d 621; *Matter of Van Hoesen,*67 N. Y. S. 2d 503; *Matter of Hellinger,*83 N. Y. S. 2d 10.) The will is so construed. Settle decree on notice.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 20, 2000, applicable to workers of PCS Nitrogen, Camanche, Iowa. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 24, 2000 (65 FR 45620).                

At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New company information shows that worker separations occurred at the LaPlatte, Nebraska facility of PCS Nitrogen in late 1999-early 2000. The workers produced ammonia, urea, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and fertilizer solutions before ceasing in August, 1999.

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to cover the workers of PCS Nitrogen, LaPlatte, Nebraska.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of PCS Nitrogen who were adversely affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-36,693 is hereby issued as follows: 

All workers of PCS Nitrogen, Camanche, Iowa (TA-W-37,693) and LaPlatte, Nebraska (TA-W-37,693A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 22, 1999 through June 20, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 25th day of September, 2000. 

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-25610 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

ERIC MARTIN MATTHEWS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-371-RP

§

WARDEN S. MA’AT, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark 

Lane concerning Eric Martin Matthews’s (“Matthews”) Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1), and related briefing, (Dkts. 14, 15). (R. & R., Dkt. 19). In his 

report and recommendation, Judge Lane recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice 

Matthews’s Application and deny Matthews’s motions to stay the case or extend his responsive 

deadlines. (Id. at 19). Matthews timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Objs., 

Dkts. 22, 23). 

A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and 

recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Because Matthews timely objected to each portion of the report and 

recommendation, the Court reviews the report and recommendation de novo. Having done so, the 

Court overrules Matthews objections and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, (Dkt. 19), is ADOPTED IN PART. This Court DISMISSES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Matthews’s Application of Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 

Case 1:20-cv-00371-RP Document 24 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 2
U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1). The Court previously resolved Matthews’s Motion for Extension of Time, 

(Dkt. 17). (Text Order, 9/18/20). In light of that previous order and this order, the Court MOOTS

Matthews’s Motion to Stay Case, (Dkt. 12), and Motion for Extension of Time, (Dkt. 18).

The Court will enter final judgment by separate order.

SIGNED on December 2, 2020.

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00371-RP Document 24 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 2