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

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

U.S. Army Research Laboratory, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of the Army announces the general availability of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses relative to a novel quantum-well technology as described in the U.S. Patent #5,579,331; “Delta-strained quantum-well semiconductor lasers and optical amplifiers”; Shen,                         *et al*.; November 26, 1996. Licenses shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: AMSRL-CS-TT/Bldg 459, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5425, Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

None.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-27066  Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7 43 7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TYNISHA MARTIN KADIRI, a/k/a Martin Kadiri, a/k/a T D Martin, a/k/a Tynisha Martin, a/k/a Shug , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:17

- cr - 00367

- JKB

- 1 )

Submitted : April 7, 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tynisha Martin Kadiri, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Maddox, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, f or Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tynisha Martin Kadiri appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we disc ern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States
v. Kibble , __ F.3d __, __, No. 20

- 7009, 2021 WL 1216543, at * 2

- 4 (4th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary of Defense 

# AGENCY:

Advisory Group on Electron Devices, Department of Defense. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, November 29, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Eliot Cohen, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices. 

The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Department proposes to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on Radiation Hardened Devices, Microwave Tubes Displays and Lasers. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout. 

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d) (1994)), it had been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Defense of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 00-27199  Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### Leon DICKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26552.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1953.

Francis L. Williams, Houston, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of ten years.

Since perfecting his appeal the appellant has filed a written motion duly verified stating that he does not desire to further prosecute the same. The motion is granted and the appeal is therefore ordered dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

Independent Auditors’ Consent 

 

The Board of Directors 

TenFold Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-79053and 333-55910) on Form S-8 of TenFold Corporation, of our report dated April 4, 2002, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year endedDecember 31, 2001, and related consolidated financial statement schedule as it relates to 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of TenFold Corporation. 

 

Our report dated April 4, 2002, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that theCompany suffered a significant loss from operations during the year ended December 31, 2001, has a substantial deficit in working capital and stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2001, had negative cash flows from operations for the year endedDecember 31, 2001 and is involved in significant legal proceedings that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements and related financial statement schedule do not include anyadjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

 

KPMG LLP

 

March 18, 2004
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T O R O - A I R E , I N C ., aC a lif o rn ia c orpor a t i on, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. F E D E R A L IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , an I ndi a nac orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56880 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 5 7 8 4 - S V WJ TL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 7, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , G R A B E R , an d B E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l ai nt i ff T oro-A i re , Inc. , appeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j udgm e ntt o D e f

e nda ntF e de r a l I ns ur a nc e C om pa ny i n thi s di ve r s i ty a c t i on a r i s i ng unde rC a l i f

orni al a w . R e vi e w i ng de novo, L ove l l v. C ha ndl e r , 303 F . 3d 1039, 1052 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED MA Y24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. T he di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o D e f e nda nton the contra ctcl ai m . A ft erthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e vi dent i ary rul i ng s, w hi ch P l ai nt i ff doe s notc ha l l e nge on appe a l , no e vi de nc e s uppor t e d P l a i nt i f f’ s a s s e r t i on tha tthe ho spi t al suff

er ed a l oss of use or thatthe defec t i ve coi l s c ause d w at erdam age. E vi dence s up po rt ed P l ai nt i ff’ s a ss ert i on thatthe defec t i ve coi l s c ause d re p airs to o th erp ro p er ty, su ch as d ry w all. B u t, u n d erC alifo rn ia law , P lain ti ff’s c o m m e r c ia l g e n e r a l liab ility in s u r a n c e p o lic y d o e s n o t c o v e rth e c o s ts o f r e p a ir s in s i tua t i ons s uc h a s thi s one . S e e , e . g. , N . H . I ns . C o. v. V i e i r a , 930 F . 2d 696, 701 ( 9th C i r . 1991) (app l yi ng C al i forni a l aw ). P l ai nt i ff re l i es on ca se s thati nt erpret i ns ur a nc e pol i c i e s w i th di f f e r e ntt e xt , s e e , e . g. , S t . P a ul F i r e & M a r i ne I ns . C o. v. S e a r s , R oe buc k & C o. , 603 F . 2d 780 ( 9th C i r . 1979) , a nd on c a s e s i nvol vi ng ha z a r dous m a t e r i a l s nota ti s s ue he r e , s e e , e . g. , A rm s tr ong W or l d I nd. , I nc . v. A e tnaC a s . & S ur . C o. , 52 C a l . R ptr . 2d 690 ( C t . A pp. 1996) ( a s be s t os i ns ul a t i on) . 2. T he di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o D e f e nda nton the c l a i m of

br e a c h of

the c ove na ntof

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng. T he pa r t i e s , a nd w e, agre e thatno such cl ai m l i es i n the abse nce of a vi abl e bre ac h o f c on tra ct c l a i m. AF F I RME D.
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/ngm_epg0_plc_nus_dmmbtum.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
#### CAIN v. STATE.

No. 22774.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1944.

Gray Browne, of Abilene, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

The complaint and information appear to be in proper form. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment therefore is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary of the 2004 Named Executive Officers’ 2006
Annual Base Salaries 


 


	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  2006 Annual Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Michael J.
  Sonnenfeld

  	
   

  	
  President,
  Chief Executive Officer and Director

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  427,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Walter P.
  Buczynski

  	
   

  	
  Executive
  Vice President — Secondary

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  330,800

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  John C.
  Camp, IV

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice
  President — Chief Information Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  220,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  John C.
  Kendall

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice
  President — Investment Portfolio

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  275,700
#### EDWARD KIRBY v. MILTON DAIRY COMPANY.1

October 27, 1911.

Nos. 17,350—(32).

Evidence.

In this, a personal injury action, the verdict is sustained by the evidence.

Action in the district court for Ramsey county against Elizabeth J. Fitzpatrick and the Milton Dairy Company to recover $12,250 for personal injuries. The separate answer of Milton Dairy Company was a general denial. The case was tried before Bunn, J., who granted a motion, when plaintiff 'rested his case, to dismiss the action as to defendant Fitzpatrick. The jury returned á verdict in-favor of plaintiff for $1,250. From an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed.

Affirmed.

*Thomas J.'McDermott,*for appellant.

*Thomas McDermott*and */ohn J. Kirby,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 132 N. W. 995.

Simtson, J.

A trial of this,' a ’ personal injury action, resulted in a dismissal as to the defendant Fitzpatrick and a verdict against the defendant *505Milton Dairy Company. This defendant, having made alternative-motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial,, appeals from an order denying such motions.

By his pleading the plaintiff claimed that there was, and had been-for a long time, a hole or opening between trapdoors maintained by the appellant and forming part of the sidewalk in front of appellant’s property over an area way; that while the defect was partially concealed by ice formed thereover, the plaintiff, while walking along: the sidewalk, slipped, and caught his foot in the hole, and fell, receiving severe injuries. The evidence introduced amply establishes the existence of the defect in the trapdoors and that an injury was-received by the plaintiff. The appellant urges that the evidence-does not establish that the plaintiff fell on the walk as claimed. The-plaintiff testified to such fact, and he was fully corroborated by a witness produced on behalf of the plaintiff, who testified that he saw the plaintiff fall. The defendant introduced impeaching and conflicting evidence.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of conflicting testimony are matters within the province of the jury. The trial judge,, having seen and heard the witnesses, refused to disturb the verdict, in plaintiff’s favor. Clearly it would be directly contrary to the rule, repeatedly announced as governing the action of this court, if,, under these conditions, we undertook to determine whether the testimony of the plaintiff and a witness who testified to having seen the accident was outweighed or discredited by the testimony relied on by the appellant. The objection to the verdict because of the amount of the damages awarded involves substantially the same question — the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony as to the extent of his injury and disability. The record discloses no ground for a reversal of the order of the trial judge.

Affirmed.

Bunn, J., took no part.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                           CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2002, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John W. Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive
Officer), certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




                                             /s/ John W. Somerhalder II
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             John W. Somerhalder II
                                             Chairman of the Board
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)

                                             November 13, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 3437]


Advisory Panel to the United States Section of the North Pacific 
Anadromous Fish Commission; Notice of a Closed Meeting

    The Advisory Panel to the United States Section of the North 
Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission will meet on October 29, 2000, at 
the Imperial Hotel, 1-1-1, Uchisaiwaicho, Chiyoda-ky, Tokyo 100-8558, 
Japan. This session will involve discussion of the Eighth Annual 
Meeting of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, to be held on 
October 30--November 2, 2000. The discussion will begin at 7:00 p.m. 
and is closed to the public.
    The members of the Advisory Panel will examine various options for 
the U.S. position at the Eighth Annual Meeting. These considerations 
must necessarily involve review of sensitive matters, the disclosure of 
which would frustrate U.S. participation at the Annual Meeting. 
Accordingly, the determination has been made to close the 7:00 p.m. 
meeting pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
and 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(9).
    Requests for further information on the meeting should be directed 
to Ms. Sally Cochran, International Relations Officer, Office of Marine 
Conservation (OES/OMC), Room 5806, U.S. Department of State, 
Washington, D.C. 20520-7818. Ms. Cochran can be reached by telephone on 
(202) 647-2883 or by FAX (202) 736-7350.

    Dated: October 11, 2000.
Mary Beth West,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 00-26775 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
Exhibit ‘D’

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-4 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-4 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 120-4 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 3
| |     |                       |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | --- | --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | GLJ | Petroleum
Consultants | Principal Officers:
Harry Jung, P. Eng.
President, C.E.O.
Dana B. Laustsen, P. Eng.
Executive V.P., C.O.O.
Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.
Executive V.P.

Officers / Vice Presidents:
Terry L. Aarsby, P. Eng.
Jodi L. Anhorn, P. Eng.
Leonard L. Herchen, P. Eng.
Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.
Bryan M. Joa, P. Eng.
Mark Jobin, P. Geol.
John E. Keith, P. Eng.
John H. Stilling, P. Eng.
Douglas R. Sutton, P. Eng.
James H. Willmon, P. Eng.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER







The Board of Directors

Perpetual Energy Inc.





We hereby consent to the reference to us in the registration statement on Form 40-F and the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-168087) of Perpetual Energy Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our reports dated February 24, 2011.







Yours truly,



GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.



/s/ Jodi L. Anhorn



Jodi L. Anhorn, M. Sc., P. Eng.

Vice-President



Calgary, Alberta

March 3, 2011







4100, 400    3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada  T2P 4H2  ·  (403) 266-9500  ·  Fax (403) 262-1855  ·  GLJPC.com
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Pastore, Relator, against Harry T. Ashworth, as Warden of the Penitentiary of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

November 5, 1943.

Ernest E. L. Hammer, J.

The writ is dismissed and the prisoner remanded. Despite the statements made by the sentencing judge, the appellate courts have ruled that a sentence under the Parole Commission Law (Correction Law, art. 7-A) is necessarily based upon a previous determination that the offender is not incapable of correctional and reformatory treatment. It seems necessary to remark that sentencing judges should not indulge in explosive language indicative of a finding of fact that the defendant is incorrigible and beyond reform and then conclude with the seeming *non sequitur*of a sentence under the Parole Commission Law accompanied, as too often occurs, with a recommendation of three years’ incarceration. The decision here is required by controlling decisions of the appellate courts *(People*v. *Thompson,*251 N. Y. 428, 432; *People ex rel. Standik*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 444, affd. 266 App. Div. 775). In *People ex rel. Shapiro*v. *Keeper of City Prison*(290 N. Y. 393) it was held in effect that on habeas corpus the Supreme Court would be exercising independent discretion, not authorized by law, if it reviewed the findings of another court.