alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|New Mexico - East Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|New Mexico - East Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 126    | 200    | 312   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 310    | 364    | 284    | 183    | 169    | 179    | 61     | 71     | 89     | 98    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 183    | 152    | 31     | 138    | 289    | 150    | 139    | 192    | 275    | 113   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 625    | 479    | 279    | 475    | 383    | 468    | 370    | 426    | 415    | 317   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 326    | 520    | 583    | 698    | 701    | 934    | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Castro, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on April 13, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted arson in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 *Vs*to 25 years, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross and Ellerin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Jose Granados-Leon

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CR-75-LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The District Court referred this case to the United States Magistrate 

Judge for the taking of the defendant’s felony guilty plea and for his allocution pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

On March 5, 2020, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. The 

undersigned addressed the defendant personally in open court, informed him of the admonishments 

under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that he understood 

those admonishments. The defendant pled guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry into the United 

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Magistrate Judge finds the following:

1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, consented to enter this guilty plea before 

the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;

2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and possible 

penalties;

3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights, understands that his

constitutional and statutory rights can be waived, and understands the meaning and 

effect of the waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights;
4. The defendant waived prosecution by indictment;

5. The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

6. The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

7. There is a factual basis for this plea. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the defendant’s guilty 

plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilt 

against him.

WARNING

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds 

of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on March 5, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### Margaret E. McDermott et al., Respondents, v South Farmingdale Water District, Defendant, and Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of Oyster Bay appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated June 12, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the defendant South Farmingdale Water District is severed.

The plaintiff Margaret McDermott alleged that she lost control of her vehicle and suffered personal injuries when, on the evening of April 22, 1985, the left side of the car that she was driving on North Hickory Street near Fern Drive in North Massapequa dropped and pivoted, owing to a depressed water main cover in the roadway.

The defendant Town of Oyster Bay moved for summary judgment, alleging that it had had no notice of and had not created the defective condition. In support of its motion, it submitted, *inter alia,*two affidavits from its Superintendent of Highways alleging that the town did not "have in its posses*518sion any records” regarding repaving at the site since 1950, and that a search of "all road opening permits, logbooks, and complaint books” revealed "no records regarding paving or repaving by the town of oyster bay at or around the alleged accident site”. These affidavits sufficed to establish prima facie the town’s entitlement to summary judgment, and it was then the plaintiffs burden to produce proof in admissible form to show that there indeed existed a genuine triable issue of fact *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324; *Ferber v Sterndent Corp.,*51 NY2d 782, 783; *Jones v Gameray,*153 AD2d 550; *Zigman v Town of Hempstead,*120 AD2d 520, 521). This the plaintiffs failed to do, producing instead only an attorney’s affirmation in support of their contention that the depression in the roadway had been caused by a paving contractor hired by the town—a theory the plaintiffs’ counsel alleged was supported by the deposition testimony of a witness for the codefendant South Farmingdale Water District to the effect that any repaving would have been arranged by the town. The pertinent pages of that witness’s deposition testimony were not made part of the record. The affidavit of an attorney without firsthand knowledge has no probative force *(see, Di Sabato v Soffes,*9 AD2d 297, 300-301). Since the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of opposing the defendant town’s motion by adducing more than "bald, conclusory allegations” *(Jones v Gameray, supra,*at 551), the complaint is dismissed. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 12**

Dated:  June 26, 2006

I, David Balai,certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and allreports on Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reportsfiled in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,of Permanent Financing (No. 3) PLC, Permanent Funding (No. 1) Limitedand Permanent Mortgages Trustee Limited;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information inthese reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distributionor servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicerunder the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in thesereports is included in these reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annualcompliance statement included in the report and required to be delivered to themortgages trustee in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, orsimilar, agreement and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer hasfulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significantdeficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with the minimum servicingstandards based upon the report provided by an independent accountant, afterconducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Programfor Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliatedparties: Halifax plc

Date: June 26, 2006

 
| By:                                                      |   | /s/ David Balai |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|--------|
| Title:  Director, Permanent Funding (No. 1) Limited |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59154-59155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25227]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA-71-7146b; FRL-6879-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency proposes to approve the 
Thurston County, Washington PM-10 area maintenance plan and 
redesignation request from nonattainment to attainment as revisions to 
the Washington State Implementation Plan. PM-10 air pollution is 
suspended particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal ten micrometers.
    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without 
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
submittal amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further 
activity is contemplated.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be 
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting 
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received in writing by November 3, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Debra Suzuki, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality, 
at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
    Copies of the State's request and other information supporting this 
action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and State of Washington Department 
of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, PO Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-
7600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Downey, Office of Air Quality 
(OAQ-107), EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553-0682.

[[Page 59155]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: September 12, 2000.
Michael F. Gearheard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 00-25227 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5225 

To suspend temporarily the duty on check valves of steel, having an opening 

approximately 7.62 cm. or more in diameter and certified by the importer 

as meeting ASME B16.34 certification requirements as approved for 

use in nuclear facilities. 

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 check valves of steel, 

having an opening approximately 7.62 cm. or more in 

diameter and certified by the importer as meeting ASME 

B16.34 certification requirements as approved for use 

in nuclear facilities. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5225 IH

1 SECTION 1. CHECK VALVES OF STEEL, HAVING AN OPEN2 ING APPROXIMATELY 7.62 CM. OR MORE IN 

3 DIAMETER AND CERTIFIED BY THE IM4 PORTER AS MEETING ASME B16.34 CERTIFI5 CATION REQUIREMENTS AS APPROVED FOR 

6 USE IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES. 

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

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Check valves of steel, having 

an opening approximately 

7.62 cm. or more in diameter 

and certified by the importer 

as meeting ASME B16.34 

certification requirements as 

approved for use in nuclear 

facilities (provided for in subheading 8481.30.20) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

12 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

13 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

14 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### William B. COX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27372.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1955.

Frank W, Steinle, Jourdanton, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of Art. 666-17(1), V.A.P.C., a part1 of the Texas Liquor Control Act, the complaint and in- ■ formation alleging that appellant had a financial interest in a retail package store permit issued to one Lewis Mahulla and was at the same time the holder of a license authorizing the sale of beer at retail, and was . engaged in such business of such sale of beer at the. same location. The jury assessed as punishment 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.

There are no. formal bills of exception and no informal bills are indexed in the Question and Answer statement of facts.

The statement of facts found in the record does not purport to contain all of the evidence adduced at the trial, and we are not therefore in position to determine whether or 'not sufficient evidence was offered to support the jury verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Report of Upstream Biosciences Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended to September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mike McFarland, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
30th, September 2011


By: /s/ Mike McFarland
    -------------------------------------------------
    Mike McFarland
    Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
    President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
    (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
    Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5160 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mrs. LUMMIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber 

tow. 

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 ACRYLIC FIBER TOW. 

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: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5160 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Acrylic fiber tow containing 

92 percent or more by weight 

of acrylonitrile units, from 

200 to 600 ppm sodium and 

no organic solvent, the foregoing wound into spools each 

containing 24,000 filaments 

and with average filament 

measuring 1.3 decitex (plus 

or minus 0.15) (provided for 

in subheading 5501.30.00) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

Corrigendum to the call for proposals in the field of environmental protection

(Official Journal of the European Union C 80 of 4 April 2006)

(2006/C 112/10)

The deadline for replying, provided for in point II, is extended until 30 June 2006 exclusively for Theme 7(Scheme to support peer review of national sustainable development strategies) in Annex A.

Annex A to the call for proposals in the field of environmental protection is published on the Internet at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment /funding/general/index_en.htm

----