alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Florida Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Florida Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 108   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 122    | 99     | 86     | 64     | 90     | 81     | 69     | 62     | 69     | 57    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 53     | 45     | 55     | 59     | 117    | 110    | 119    | 112    | 106    | 100   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 93     | 96     | 102    | 92     | 88     | 87     | 50     | 110    | 1      | 7     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 56     | 6      | 16     | 15     | 0      | 0      | 1      | W      | W      | 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
EXHIBIT 23.1

To The Board of DirectorsNavstar
 Media Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting FirmNavstar Media Holdings, Inc. and SubsidiariesAudited
 Financial Statements December 31, 2005

We consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of Navstar Media Holdings,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A of our report dated April 12, 2006 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Navstar Media Holdings, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and for the year then ended, which our
report is incorporated in the Form 10-KSB/A.

/s/ Moore Stephens Wurth
Frazer and Torbet, LLPMoore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP Walnut, California
July 7, 2006

---
#### CARD v. STATE.

No. 25283.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1951.

*396Grady Hazlewood, Amarillo, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the offense of removing mortgaged property out of the county with intent to defraud, as defined in Art. 1558, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., with punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

No notice of appeal appears to have been entered of record in the minutes of the trial court, and this court is therefore without jurisdiction to enter any order herein other than to dismiss the appeal. See Art. 827, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and cases cited under Note 5 thereunder.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED 
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                   621,994
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,624,993
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              4,000,852
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         6,896,126
<PP&E>                                   3,149,210
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           19,880,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,369,441
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 2,568
<OTHER-SE>                               11,944,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             19,880,374
<SALES>                                  2,733,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,733,662
<CGS>                                    1,642,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            987,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       77,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          25,805
<INCOME-TAX>                             37,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (11,695)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             (11,695)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

BY CERTIFIED MAIL and FACSIMILE January 22, 2013 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20591 Fax: 202-366-7536 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

# RECEIVED JAN 2 22013 

# HEAR,NG DOCKET

Re: In the Matter ofTrans Time Express; FDMS No. FAA-2012-1260, FAA case no. 2011SW700220 Judge Yoder: On January 22, 2013, the parties inthe above referenced matter agreedto propose the following procedural schedule in accordance with your December 21, 2012, procedural order: • Apri126, 2013- Completion ofdiscovery. • May 31, 2013- Filing ofstipulations and witness lists, including summaries of proposed testimony; exchange ofexhibits. The FAA is aware that Respondent plans to file a motion requesting additional time to file its Answer. The parties have renewed settlement discussions in an attempt to conclude this matter prior to a hearing. The parties have agreed to propose Washington, DC for the location ofthe hearing. Sincerely, Peter Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel 

# By:Cf2

Charles Raley, Attorney Office ofthe ChiefCounsel

### 2

Certificate ofService I hereby certifY that onthis date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt, and sentby facsimile, copies ofthis letter in the case ofIn the Matter ofTrans Time Express, FDMS No. FAA-20I2-I260, FAA Case no. 20I 1SW700220, addressedto: The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20591 Fax: 202-366-7536 In addition, I hereby certifY that on this date I have delivered in person the original and one copy ofthe foregoing document to: Federal AviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000

In addition, I hereby certifY that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt, and sent by electronic transmission, copies ofthe foregoing documentto: CameronNiakan, Esq. 10101 Grosvenor Pl. #620 Rockville, MD 20852

Dated: January 22, 2013
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, James M. Papada, III, Chief Executive Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended October 1,
      2004 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Technitrol, Inc.

Dated: November 3, 2004


                                                 /s/ James M. Papada, III
                                                 ------------------------
                                                 James M. Papada, III

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered as filed
as part of the Form 10-Q.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert C. Spindler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of The Stephan Co.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: January 10, 2008


/s/ Robert C. Spindler
---------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 I, James M.
Papada, III, Chief Executive Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)
the
  quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 29, 2006
  (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with
  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
  1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and(2)
information
  contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
  the financial condition and results of operations of Technitrol, Inc.  Date:
November 6, 2006
/s/ James M.
  Papada, IIIJames M.
  Papada, III A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Xplore Technologies Corp. (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Philip S. Sassower, asChief Executive Office of the Company, and Michael J. Rapisand, as ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of each such officer’s knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| By:    | /s/ PHILIP S.  SASSOWER |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Philip S. Sassower      |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Date: June 27,2007
| By:    | /s/ MICHAEL J.  RAPISAND |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael J. Rapisand      |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |

 

Date: June 27, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures 
Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic 
control procedures and practices for standardization, revision, 
clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, October 1, Tuesday, October 2, 
and Wednesday, October 3, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Gaylord Hotel & Resort 
National Harbor, MD 801355.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary Norek, ATPAC Executive 
Director, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Monday, October 1, 
Tuesday, October 2, and Wednesday, October 3, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 
p.m.
    The agenda for this meeting will cover a continuation of the 
ATPAC's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices 
for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of 
terminology and procedures. It will also include:
    1. Approval of Minutes;
    2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern;
    3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items;
    4. Report from Executive Director;
    5. Items of Interest; and
    6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent 
meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend 
and persons desiring to present oral statements should notify Mr. Gary 
Norek no later than September 28, 2012. Any member of the public may 
present a written statement to the ATPAC at any time at the address 
given above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2012-22575 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### HONEYCUTT v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 2, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1952.

*445J. B. Campbell, C. B. Pope, Barbourville, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellant, Nathan Honeycutt, was convicted of knowingly uttering a forged deed and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. KRS 434.130.

The following grounds are relied upon in appellant’s brief for reversal : (1) error in overruling demurrer to the indictment, (2) error in admitting incompetent evidence and (3) error in failing to instruct the jury on the whole law of the case.

The indictment sets forth the acts constituting the uttering of the writing in sufficient terms. It is immaterial who committed the forgery, or how it was done. The falsity of the paper is merely a fact necessary to the existence of the offense. If the instrument be forged and it is a writing that if genuine would be of some legal efficacy and one knowingly utters it as genuine, he is guilty. The acts constituting the uttering are the gravamen of the offense. Lockard v. Commonwealth, 87 Ky. 201, 8 S.W. 266; Commonwealth v. Cochran, 143 Ky. 807, 137 S.W. 521. The demurrer was properly overruled.

In support of the second contention, appellant claims that when the purported deed was delivered to him, he had the right to rely upon the certificate appended to the deed which was signed by an alleged deputy county court clerk certifying that it was acknowledged by the persons therein named. He further contends that the evidence introduced 'by the Commonwealth that impeached the certificate was in violation of KRS 61.060. This statute cannot be pleaded as a shield against prosecution in a case of this kind. The certificate upon which appellant claims he relied was signed by his son, Thomas G. Honeycutt. It was established that Thomas G. Honeycutt had no legal right to take the acknowledgment. He was not a deputy county court clerk, notary public, or an official of any kind at the time he took the acknowledgment. We observe that Thomas G. Honeycutt did not testify. The evidence showing the certificate false was competent.

The court gave three instructions. The first one substantially followed the language of the indictment. The second defined certain words used in the first instruction. The third was the reasonable doubt instruction. The instructions given covered the whole law of the case. Ap*446pellant has failed to ¡point out any error as to their form or substance and we find none appearing-.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.