alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Oklahoma Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Oklahoma Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 48,800 | 43,870 | 39,600 | 32,800 | 34,700 | 35,000 | 33,600 | 34,000
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 34,000 | 34,000 | 34,000 | 34,000 | 34,000 | 35,600 | NA     | 29,400 | NA     | 30,150
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 30,250 | 30,350 | 30,968 | 30,968 | 30,968 | 30,968 | 34,100 | 34,100 | 34,100 | 32,638
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 32,638 | 32,638 | 33,270 | 34,256 | 34,747 | 35,141 | 35,141 | 35,586 | 35,586 | 35,586
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 35,586 | 35,586 | 35,586 | 35,586 | 35,586 |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41486 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MIGUEL RUIZ, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05

- CR

- 643

- 2

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Miguel Ruiz, Jr., federal prisoner # 57857

- 179, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 4.83 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Ruiz was found to be a care er offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, but the district court varied from the applicable guidelines range of
292 to 365 months for reasons related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sentenced Ruiz to 210 months of imprisonment.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41486 Document: 00513701982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2016No. 15

- 41486

2 Ruiz now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . In the § 3582(c)(2) motion, Ruiz argued that he was entitled to resentencing based on Sente ncing Guidelines Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels f or most drug

- trafficking offenses. By moving to proceed IFP , Ruiz challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquir y into a litigant’s good faith “ is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotati o n marks and citation omitted). We review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) moti on for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
The record confirms that Ruiz was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because , as a career offender pursuant to § 4B1.1, he was not sentenced based on a guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by Amendment 782

. See United States v. Anderso n, 591 F.3d 789, 790

- 91 (5th Cir. 2009); § 3582(c)(2). Th e fact th at the district court varied from the calculated guidelines range based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors does not change Ruiz’s status as a career offender

. See United States v. Carter , 595 F.3d 575, 578 (5th Cir. 2 010). Accordingly, t he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Anderson , 591 F.3d at 791. This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d
at 220. Accordingly, Ruiz’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41486 Document: 00513701982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2016
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67628-67629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28867]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 736

RIN 0703-AA60


Disposition of Property

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Final Rule; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy published a document in the Federal 
Register on September 5, 2000, (65 FR 53589) amending regulations on 
disposition of property. One amendment inadvertently removed the 
authority of the Department of the Navy to sell property not excess to 
its needs. This document corrects that error.

DATES: Effective on November 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Chris Carlson, USMC, Regulations 
and Legislation, FOIA/PA Branch, Administrative Law Division, Office of 
the Judge Advocate General (Code 13), 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 
3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066. Phone (703) 604-8219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Navy (DON) published a 
document in the Federal Register on September 5, 2000, (65 FR 53589) 
amending Part 736. In FR Doc. 00-22445, published in the Federal 
Register on September 5, 2000, Sec. 736.5(e) was inadvertently amended. 
This correction adds back the language on the sale of property that was 
deleted in the revision to Sec. 736.5(e).
    In rule FR doc. 00-22445 published on September 5, 2000, (65 FR 
53589) make the following correction. On page 53590, in the third 
column, at amendment 4(d) correct the paragraph to read:


Sec. 736.5  Disposition of real and personal property under special 
statutory authority.

* * * * *
    (e) Exchange or sale of property for replacement purposes. Under 
the authority of section 201(c) of the Federal Property Act (40 U.S.C. 
481(c)) and

[[Page 67629]]

consistent with Department of Defense implementing regulations, DOD 
4140.1-R and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, the 
Department of the Navy is authorized in the acquisition of new 
equipment to exchange or sell similar items which are not excess to its 
needs, and apply the exchange allowance or proceeds of sale in whole or 
part payment for the items acquired.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
C.G. Carlson,
U.S. Marine Corps, Alternate Federal Register, Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28867 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### KENNEDY v. STATE.

No. 25595.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1952.

Reid & Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail.

The purchaser named in the information testified that he purchased from appellant a half-pint of whisky, for which he paid him $2.'50. He fixed the time and place of the purchase at about 4:30 o’clock on the afternoon of June 2, 1951, at appellant’s residence.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, denied the sale of the whisky to the prosecuting witness and testified that at the time fixed by the witness for the sale he was in the State of New Mexico. Other circumstances tended to corroborate this defense.

It is apparent that the defense of alibi was raised by the testimony.

Over proper objection and requested charge, the trial court refused to submit the defense of ali'bi to the jury. In doing so, he fell into error which requires a reversal of the conviction.

.The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Kirk Voclain

Kirk Voclain Photography

1120 Lafayette Street

Houma, LA 70360

Dear Mr. Voclain :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your December 2 9 , 2014 exemption request of behalf of Kirk Voclain

Photography into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 14

- 110 9 ) , but we are unable to process your

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 15.1



CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-209700 and 333-212801) of Intec
Pharma Ltd. of our report dated April 6, 2017 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form
20-F.





|                 |                                                              
|---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv,
Israel | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman                                    
|April
7, 2017    | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)                          
|                 | A
member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited
|                 |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION " ('l "l r. (']' 20 i.!JL/. ..,t L PM 3: 12 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-050-H-BQ-l 

CAMERON AKIAH VARNER 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count Eleven of the Indictment, charging defendant with a violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(l) and (b), that is, Transportation of Child Pornography. After 

examining Defendant under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

Case 5:22-cr-00050-H-BQ Document 32 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 73
3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed July 20, 2022. 

Case 5:22-cr-00050-H-BQ Document 32 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 74
# Updates on Alternative 

# Refrigerants for MVACs

Yaidi Cancel Stratospheric Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MACS Annual Convention Orlando, FL January 29, 2011 

### Part I: HFO - 1234yf

# Scope

• Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)

– Program overview

– Rule status 

### • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) • Petition to find HFO - 1234yf exempt as volatile organic compound (VOC)

# What is the SNAP Program?

• Part of U.S. response to Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer • Clean Air Act (sect. 612) ▫ EPA evaluates/lists substitutes that reduce overall risk to human health & environment ▫ Considers various parameters including:  Ozone depletion, GWP, other environmental impacts, toxicity, flammability ▫ Lists substitutes in specific uses  Acceptable, unacceptable, or acceptable w/restrictions

# HFO - 1234yf SNAP Final Rule

Status • Proposed acceptable with use conditions 

### for new motor vehicles • Comment period closed • Final rule with OMB • Anticipated final rule publication: Spring 2011

# What Alternatives are Already 

# Acceptable under SNAP?
• Listed alternatives for MVACs (e.g., HFC - 152a)

– For more, go to: • www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/



### • IMPORTANT: All MVAC refrigerants must use unique fittings and labels

# Other Rules on HFO - 1234yf:

Final SNUR
• Published on October 27, 2010 • Addresses potential health concerns • Requires submission of SNUN to EPA 90 days before using HFO - 1234yf in activities designated as significant new use:

– Use other than: • Charging MVAC by OEMs in new passenger cars and vehicles • MVAC servicing by Sect. 609 certified techs

– Manufacture, process, and distribution for servicing, maintenance, and disposal

# VOC Exemption Petition
• VOC = ground - level ozone (smog) precursor • Petition to exempt HFO - 1234yf (refrigerant) and HFO - 1234ze (foam - blowing agent) from 

### status as VOC

– If petition granted, rulemaking process • State and local regulators would not be required to regulate these compounds as VOCs

# Questions? 

# For More Information:

– SNAP (Docket EPA- HQ- OAR -2008-0664) • Margaret Sheppard: 202 - 343 - 9163 • www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/



### – SNUR (Docket EPA- HQ- OPPT-2008-0918) • Kenneth Moss: 202 - 564 - 9232



### – VOC Exemption • Docket EPA- HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0605 opens at www.regulations.gov upon publication • William L. Johnson: 919 - 541 - 5245

# Updates on Alternative 

# Refrigerants for MVACs

Yaidi Cancel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stratospheric Protection Division MACS Annual Convention Orlando, FL January 29, 2011 

### Part II: CO 2

### • Proposed acceptable with use conditions 

### for new motor vehicles • Comment period closed • Anticipated final rule publication: Summer or Fall 2011 

# CO 2 

# SNAP Final Rule Status

### – SNAP:

• Yaidi Cancel: 202 - 343 - 9512 • www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ • Docket EPA- HQ - OAR - 2004 - 0488 at http://www.regulations.gov 

# Questions? 

# For More Information:

# Backup Slides

# SNAP Process
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 

75.81.70.118,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 3:22-cv-01024-K

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY ADDRESS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following change of attorney address for Paul S. Beik, 

Beik Law Firm, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings, LLC in the above-captioned action, 

as follows: 

Paul S. Beik

Beik Law Firm, PLLC

917 Franklin Street, Suite 220

Houston, Texas 77002 

Tel: (713) 869-6975

Fax: (713) 583-9169

paul@beiklaw.com

Dated: June 20, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Paul S. Beik 

PAUL S. BEIK

Texas Bar No. 24054444

BEIK LAW FIRM, PLLC

917 Franklin Street, Suite 220

Houston, TX 77002

T: 713-869-6975

F: 713-583-9169

E-mail: paul@beiklaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC 

Case 3:22-cv-01024-K Document 10 Filed 06/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 71
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of LaSalle Hotel Properties (LHO) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hans S. Weger, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of LHO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of LHO.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



February 18, 2004





/s/    HANS S. WEGERHans S. WegerExecutive Vice President, Treasurerand Chief Financial Officer
JULY TERM, 1714.

Vide Lib. V. D. No. 1. fol. 300.

#### Richard Smith’s Lessee *against*John Broughton.

EJECTMENT fora tract of land lying and being in *Calvert*County, the first part of 1,100 acres, called *His Lordship’sfree*Gift, part whereof was formerly called *Johnson's*Fresh, and the other part *Angle.*Plea *non cul.*and issue. The verdict was for the defendant.

Reasons in arrest of Judgment. That the Court with the consent of parties, directed the Jury to find a special verdict to the following effect: That *Gabriel Goulden*was seised in fee-simple of 100 acres of land, called Angle, in the declaration mentioned, and being so seised made his will and testament in writing, the 15th February, 1664, and died without heirs. That the escheat patent to the plaintiff of the land in dispute, is dated 2d May, 1713. Which verdict the Jurors in contempt of the Court neglected and refused to give, but in opposition to the Court returned a general verdict. That the Court ought to award a *venire de novo.*Judgment on the verdict of non-suit.

*T.*Macnemara, for plaintiff.

*T.*Bordley, for defendant.

MAY TERM, 1716.

RULED that all returns made by any sheriff in ejectment without being upon oath, be received as good proof of the service of such ejectment.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|                                        |                                                                                                                        |                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                 October 16, 2006 | By:                                                                                                               | /s/*John              B.              Gallagher*  |
|                                        | Name: John                  B. Gallagher Title:                     Co-Chief Executive                    Officer |

|                                        |                                                                                                                        |                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                                                                                        |                                                               |
| Date:                 October 16, 2006 | By:                                                                                                               | */s/              Harry D.              Shields*    |
|                                        | Name: Harry                    D. ShieldsTitle:                     Co-Chief Executive                    Officer |

----