alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,763  | 3,051  | 3,444  | 3,509 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,787  | 3,086  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 5319 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the 

mainstem of the Nashua River and its tributaries in the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Ms. TSONGAS (for herself and Mr. OLVER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

segments of the mainstem of the Nashua River and 

its tributaries in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

for study for potential addition to the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nashua River Wild 

5 and Scenic River Study Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5319 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY. 

2 Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(lll) NASHUA RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.— 

6 (A) The approximately 19-mile segment of the 

7 mainstem of the Nashua River from the confluence 

8 of the North and South Nashua Rivers in Lancaster, 

9 Massachusetts, north to the Massachusetts/New 

10 Hampshire State line, and its tributaries, except the 

11 approximately 4.8-mile segment of the mainstem of 

12 the Nashua River from the Route 119 bridge in 

13 Groton, Massachusetts downstream to its confluence 

14 with the Nissitissit River in Pepperell, Massachu15 setts. 

16 ‘‘(B) The 10-mile segment of the Squannacook 

17 River from its headwaters at Ash Swamp down18 stream to its confluence with the Nashua River in 

19 Shirley/Ayer, Massachusetts. 

20 ‘‘(C) The 3.5-mile segment of the Nissitissit 

21 River from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire State 

22 line downstream to its confluence with the Nashua 

23 River in Pepperell, Massachusetts.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5319 IH

1 SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT. 

2 Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(ll) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 

6 3 years after the date on which funds are made 

7 available to carry out this paragraph, the Secretary 

8 of the Interior shall complete the study of the Nash9 ua River in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, as 

10 described in subsection (a)(lll), and submit a 

11 report describing the results of that study to the 

12 Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

13 Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

14 Natural Resources of the Senate.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.1.3


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                   FIRST AMENDED PORTER LANE INVESTMENTS, INC.
                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT


         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered into as of this
the 31st day of July, 2001, by and between Small Town Radio, Inc., a Georgia
corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), its principals and
affiliates and Porter Lane Investments, Inc., a Georgia corporation, its
principals and affiliates (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), and amends
the First Amended Consulting Agreement dated the 16th day of April, 2001.

         WHEREAS, Company has requested that Consultant consider termination of
the above noted Consulting Agreement as of this date; and

         WHEREAS, Consultant is agreeable to such request under the terms herein
noted;

         THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties here to
agree as follows:

1. Engagement Term: The term of the Agreement shall terminate as of July 31,
2001.

2. Termination Fee: Company agrees to pay a one time Termination Fee equal to
one month's fee under the original agreement, which Termination Fee shall equal
Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000).

3. Payment of Monies Due: Company agrees to pay the Termination Fee and all
unpaid fees, said unpaid fees approximating Two Hundred and Sixty Four Thousand
Dollars ($264,000), due to Consultant not later than the 15th Day of August,
2001.

4. Other: All conditions contained in the prior Consulting Agreement, as
amended, between Company and Consultant, such as Confidentiality and
Indemnification and Notices, remain in force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company and Consultant have caused this
Amendment to be executed as the date first written above.

THE COMPANY:                         CONSULTANT:


By:   /s/ Robert S. Vail             By:    /s/ Gerald Sullivan
    ---------------------------          ----------------------------------
Its:    CFO                          Its:      President
    --------------------------           ---------------------------------
#### In the Matter of John Foxell, Appellant, v New York City Human Resources Administration et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman C. Ryp, J.), entered September 13, 1989, which granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, the judgment vacated, respondents’ motion denied, the petition reinstated, the respondents directed to serve their answer within 20 days of the service upon them of this court’s order with notice of entry and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings, without costs.

The petition alleges that, on October 15, 1987, petitioner, a social services caseworker, was briefly hospitalized for stress and that, upon respondents’ recommendation, he was placed on approved sick leave from October 15, 1987 to January 5, 1988. Upon his return to work, it is alleged petitioner was not assigned any caseload or field work, was not permitted to work overtime and his supervisors barely spoke to him despite his alleged ability to perform all his prior duties. At about the same time, petitioner took and passed a civil service examina*127tion for promotion to the position of supervisor I for the Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Services Division, and was rated 73rd out of 2,000 on the eligible list. He was subsequently interviewed for the position but was notified in November 1989 that he would not be promoted. Petitioner alleges that he was denied the promotion because respondents determined that he was medically unable to handle the duties of the position.

Accepting the factual allegations in the petition and supporting affidavit as true, as the court must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), petitioner has sufficiently stated a cause of action for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15).

Rarely is discrimination so obvious that recognition or proof of it is instant and conclusive *(State Div. of Human Rights v Kilian Mfg. Corp.,*35 NY2d 201, 209). Although respondents had no obligation to give petitioner any reason for their determination not to promote him, such determination may not be based upon illegal grounds, including unlawful discrimination. Petitioner has plainly alleged a link between his hospitalization and sick leave and his subsequent treatment on the job by respondents. While this does not directly establish that petitioner’s duties as caseworker were reduced for improper reasons or that the promotion was denied for the same reason as his caseload was reduced, it is certainly probative and suggestive of same. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
* Based on external data file CUTPOINT.D (SEE P. 16&17 OF EPA REPORT M6.IM.001)
* I/M240 cutpoints for 2009 calendar year model runs
* First year is MY2009

I/M CUTPOINTS
* Block 1 (LDGV, LDGT1)
  0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800
  0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   1.200   1.200   1.200   1.200   1.200   2.000    
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000  
 15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000
 15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  30.000   
 30.000  30.000  30.000  30.000  30.000  
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   3.000   
  3.000   3.000   3.000   3.000   3.000 

* Block 2 (LDGT2, LDGT3)
  1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000
  1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   3.200  
  3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200   
 20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000
 20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  80.000  
 80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  
  2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500
  2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   3.000   3.000   3.000   3.000   3.000   3.500   
  3.500   3.500   7.000   7.000   7.000  

* Block 3 (LDGT4)
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   3.200   
  3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200  
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  80.000  
 80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.500   4.500   4.500   4.500   4.500   5.000   
  5.000   5.000   7.000   7.000   7.000  

* Block 4 (HDGV)
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   3.200   
  3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200  
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  80.000  
 80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.500   4.500   4.500   4.500   4.500   5.000   
  5.000   5.000   7.000   7.000   7.000
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Wyoming 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 226    | 220    | 637   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 760    | 749    | 632    | 1,205  | 553    | 598    | 1,631  | 771    | 1,410  | 1,237 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 743    | 934    | 996    | 907    | 1,146  | 2,369  | 1,193  | 1,191  | 1,918  | 3,857 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,339  | 1,860  | 1,295  | 2,072  | 2,853  | 2,160  | 1,339  | 4,832  | 5,316  | 5,281 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4,880  | 3,271  | 1,781  | 3,800  | 2,235  | 885    | 1,335  | 3,373  | 1,290  | 633   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 871    | 2,231  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25758]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Secretary


List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International 
Boycott

    In order to comply with the mandate of section 999(a)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is 
publishing a current list of countries which may require participation 
in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning 
of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
    On the basis of the best information currently available to the 
Department of the Treasury, the following countries may require 
participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within 
the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986): 
Bahrain, Iraz, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, 
Syria, United Arab Emirates, Republic of Yemen.

    Dated: September 29, 2000.
Philip West,
International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 00-25758 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
#### Marili Forastieri et al., Respondents, v Jay Hasset, Respondent, and Ralph Stege, Doing Business as RS Construction, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on December 15, 1989, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment against defendant Ralph Stege, doing business as RS Construction, and remanded the matter for an inquest is unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, plaintiffs’ motion denied and defendant’s cross motion to vacate the default and compel acceptance of his answer is granted on condition that he pay $500 in costs to plaintiffs, without costs or disbursements. In the event that defendant does not pay said costs to plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this order, then the order being appealed herein is affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The instant action alleges claims for negligence and breach of contract against defendant-appellant Ralph Stege, doing business as RS Construction, in connection with property damage which occurred on June 23, 1988 at certain premises at 426 West Broadway in Manhattan. It is plaintiffs’ contention that they entered into a contract with codefendant Jay Hasset to install a skylight on the roof of their apartment; that Hasset, in turn, retained the services of appellant to assist him in the performance of his duties and that, as a result of the alleged failure to erect an adequate temporary roof structure and complete the job in a workmanlike and timely fashion, flooding ensued. An answer to plaintiffs’ summons and complaint, served on April 1, 1989, was interposed *126by appellant on July 31, 1989 but was rejected as untimely, and appellant’s subsequent attempt to vacate the default judgment against him and compel acceptance of his answer was denied by the Supreme Court, which found that appellant’s explanations for his delay in answering were specious. The record, however, reveals a viable defense to both causes of action against him. Moreover, there is no indication that plaintiffs have been prejudiced by appellant’s delay in answering, which, significantly, was minimal in duration.

In view of the existence of an apparently meritorious defense, the relatively short delay involved, the lack of prejudice to plaintiffs and the fact that the lapse in time was partially attributable to law office failure, this matter seems to present precisely the sort of situation which warrants the exercise of the court’s discretion under CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the acceptance of a pleading which has not been timely served "upon such terms as may be just” in order that the issues in question herein can be resolved on their merits. Nonetheless, in order to compensate plaintiffs for any inconvenience which they might have suffered because of appellant’s untimeliness, the imposition of $500 in costs against him is appropriate. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
___________

No. 95-1850

___________

Frank W. Askew, Jr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

Robert Brinkley, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

v. *

 *

M.D. Reed, Warden, Individually *

and in Official Capacity, *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; A.D. *

Bradberry, Assistant Warden, *

Individually and in Official *

Capacity, Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Major *

A.J. Hall, Individually and in * Appeal from the United States

Official Capacity, Cummins Unit, * District Court for the

Arkansas Department of * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Correction; CO-1 N.C. Nelson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Individually and in Official *

Capacity, Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; CO-1 *

J. Hood, Individually and in *

Official Capacity, Cummins Unit, *

Arkansas Department of *

Correction; William Terry, *

Individually and in Official *

Capacity, Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; *

Mr. Herrington, Individually and *

in Official Capacity, Cummins *

Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; J. Blankenship, *

Hearing Officer, Individually *

and in Official Capacity, *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; John *

Does, Individually and in *

Official Capacity, Other Unknown *

Correctional Officers, Cummins *

Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *
 1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was

referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 5, 1996

 Filed: January 18, 1996 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frank W. Askew appeals the district court's1 partial grant of

summary judgment to defendant prison officials, and award of

nominal damages to him after a bench trial in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. Having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the

record, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25369]



[[Page 59043]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region IV District Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, North Florida District 
Office, Jacksonville, Florida, Advisory Council will hold a public 
meeting from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., October 26, 2000, located at the 
University Center, 12000 Alumni Drive, University of North Florida, 
Jacksonville, Florida, to discuss such matters as may be presented by 
members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others 
present. For further information write or call Claudia D. Taylor, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100-B, 
Jacksonville, Florida 32256 (904) 443-1933.

Bettie Baca,
Counselor to the Administrator/Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-25369 Filed 10-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P