alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|U.S. Domestic Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank Cars (Rail) (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|U.S. Domestic Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Tank Cars (Rail) (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 4,724  | 4,925  | 6,985  | 12,801  | 16,997  | 20,354  | 20,747 | 22,237 | 19,752
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 19,999 | 19,047 | 7,517  | 8,852  | 7,196   | NA      | 6,040   | NA     | 13,019 | 8,418 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 7,330  | 7,434  | 7,542  | 7,587  | 6,163   | 4,879   | 4,534   | 3,982  | 4,332  | 4,150 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4,328  | 6,247  | 30,085 | 76,162 | 133,321 | 110,790 | 110,284 | 77,342 | 81,883 | 92,617
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 71,532 | 46,995 | 28,447 | 38,612 |         |         |         |        |        |       
|- = 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

d1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

138616(48) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138616 

 COA: 281466 

Wayne CC: 06-011689-01 

DESHON ARRON MILLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s August 6, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BQ Document 387 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 903
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60982

Summary Calendar

JAIME ROJO-RESENDIZ

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A74 664 018

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jamie Rojo-Resendiz petitions for review of the final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen immigration

proceedings. The BIA denied the motion to reopen on the ground that RojoResendiz had overstayed his period of voluntary departure and therefore was

statutorily ineligible for the relief sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d). We review

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60982

2

the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Banda-Ortiz v.

Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2006).

Rojo-Resendiz at no time sought to withdraw his request for voluntary

departure and he states in his reply brief in this court that “Because Mr. Rojo

only wishes to voluntary depart now, he is only challenging the issue of

automatic tolling of the voluntary departure period.”

Rojo-Resendiz argues that his timely filed motion to reopen tolled the

voluntary departure period. Rojo-Resendiz’s argument is without merit. See

Dada v. Mukasey, 128 S. Ct. 2307, 2318-19 (2008); Banda-Ortiz, 445 F.3d at 391.

In this matter, Rojo-Resendiz became ineligible to adjust his status because he

failed to departthe United States within the 60-day voluntary departure period,

which expired while his motion to reopen was pending. See § 1229c(d)(B).

Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to

reopen. See Banda-Ortiz, 445 F.3d at 391; § 1229c(d)(B).

Rojo-Resendiz argues that the BIA erred in not ruling on his motion to

stay or extend his voluntary departure period, which he filed contemporaneously

with his motion to reopen. The applicable statutory and regulatory provisions,

however, make clear thatthe BIA was without authority to extend the voluntary

departure period beyond the 60 days already granted. See Dada at 2316; §

1229c(b); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(f). Accordingly, the BIA’s implicit denial of the

motion to stay or extend the voluntary departure period was not error.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Planning and Steering Advisory Committee (PSAC) has been renewed in consonance with the public interest, and in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 92-463, the “Federal Advisory Committee Act.”

The PSAC provides an avenue of communications by which a distinguished group representing scientific, academic engineering, and intelligence communities advises the Chief of Naval Operations on questions related to SSBN Security. Their mission is to make in-depth technical assessments of U.S. and foreign threat ASW developments and related technologies, to critically review programs which potentially impact SSBN survivability, and to evaluate intelligence efforts to identify and define ASW and SSBN survivability threats.

The Committee will continue to be composed of selected Group members to conduct detailed examinations of matters related to SSBN security.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please contact Laura Wurzer, telephone: 301-693-0934.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-28863 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
29

Case 4:22-cr-00155-Y Document 20 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
Case 4:22-cr-00155-Y Document 20 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2071

JUDSON WITHAM,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; 

INTERNATIONAL PAPER AND POWER INC.; DEC NEW YORK STATE; 

STATE OF NEW YORK; ANDREW CUOMO, Governor; BASIL SEGGOS, 

Commissioner DEC; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EMPLOYEES FOR NEW 

YORK STATE; 1 - 10 (BIVENS ACTION); WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK; 

NYS DEC; THE LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION; NEW YORK STATE 

CONSERVATION COM; STATE OF VERMONT,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-cv-00385-M)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judson Witham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2071 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Judson Witham appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Witham’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 

775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under 

Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2071 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### CRITTENTON v. STATE.

No. 22595.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1943.

Motion to Reinstate Appeal Granted Jan. 5, 1944.

*758Shelburne H. Glover, of Jefferson, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The only notice of appeal in this case appears as a notation upon appellant’s amended motion for a new trial. The record does not reflect that notice of appeal was entered of record in the trial court, that is, upon the minutes of said court, as required by the mandatory provisions of Art. 827, C.C.P.

The absence of a proper notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Motion to Reinstate Appeal

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record in this case has been corrected so as to show that notice of appeal was made in open court and entered of record. The motion to reinstate the appeal is granted.

The record is before us without any statement of facts, but from the bills of exception it appears that appellant was arrested with another negro while transporting a large quantity of liquor, wine, and beer through Harrison County, a dry area. Soon after the arrest they were taken to the county judge’s office where a plea of guilty was entered and appellant assessed a fine of $500. He immediately got in touch with his -lawyer from his home county of Marion, who filed a motion for rehearing setting up questions of fact which were not apparent of record. It alleged improper, hearsay, and prejudicial testimony had been submitted to the court, causing him to assess a fine of $500 against this appellant, while his companion in crime was assessed only a $100 fine. This motion is not sworn to, either by appellant or his attorney. No consideration will be given to the things alleged in it. This motion is the basis for the bill of exception, which cannot have greater force than the motion itself had. Furthermore, the trial court qualified the bill by saying that he had fixed the penalty in appellant’s case before any such statements were made, as set out in the bill. As presented, the bill does not show error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ORDER AMENDING RULES 223 AND 1006 AND APPROVING REVISION OF THE NOTE TO RULE 225 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE : : : : : : : : NO. 639 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW**, this 29th day of April, 2016, upon the recommendation of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b) : **IT IS**  **ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rules 223 and 1006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are amended , and the revision of the Note to Rule 225 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civi l Procedure is approved, as set forth in the attached form. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective i mmediately

.
Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. JOHN WAYNE BUTZ, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 195 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 13th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SIMCALA, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,841<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,787
<PP&E>                                          59,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,703
<BONDS>                                         81,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,807
<OTHER-SE>                                      (8,195)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,691
<SALES>                                         24,547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,547
<CGS>                                           22,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (561)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,120)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Of this amount, 6,556 was Restricted Cash
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK I]iV]STON

Plaintifl No. 5:22-CV-093-H

GLORIA HELLER, et a1.,

Defendants

NOTICE

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs Motion for Enuy of Agreed Partial Judgment. Dkr.

No. 10. The plaintlffand three of four named defendants appear to "have now reached an

agreement to resolve this dispute" between them, and the plaintiffasks the Court to enter rts

Agreed Partial Judgment bearing those defendants' signatures. Dkt. Nos. i0 at 1; 10-1 at4.

As the proposed partial judgment recognizes, the plaintiffs "claims against Gloria He11er

remain pending." Dkt. No. 10-1 at 3.

To avoid the possibility ofrendering inconsistent judgments as to the parties'

interests il the property at issue, the Court provides this notice to inform the paties thar it

intends to delay resolution of the Motion for Entry of Agreed Partial Judgment (Dkt. No.

10) until the remaining defendant's potential interest is adjudicated or otherwise resolved by

similar agreement.

J

So ordered on Argust?4 ,2022

UN ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

not in its individual capaciry but solely as 

I

trustee for the RMAC TRUST, SERIES 

I

2016-cTT. l

I

WESLEY HENDRIX

Case 5:22-cv-00093-H Document 13 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 109
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69032-69033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29139]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.

[[Page 69033]]

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Iniltial Review 
Group, Subcommittee A--Cancer Centers.
    Date: December 7-8, 2000.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites, Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd., 
Wisconsin at Western Ave., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: David E. Maslow, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of 
Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard--Room 8054, Bethesda, MD 20892-
7405, 301/496-2330.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 3, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29139 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Broadband Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
-------------------------
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

          - 50 CFR Part 679 
          - [Docket No. 000211040-0040-01; I.D. 102400C]

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Reallocation; correction.

# SUMMARY:

This document corrects the reallocation of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) Pacific cod from trawl catcher/processors and vessels using jig gear to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear.

# DATES:

Effective November 1, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document corrects the reallocation of Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands from trawl catcher/processors and vessels using jig gear to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear.

## Correction

                    In the final rule Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; published on November 1, 2000 (65 FR 65272), FR Doc. 00-28023, an error was made in                     **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                    .                

On page 65273, in the third column, the tenth line is corrected to read as follows: “processors, 81,958 mt to catcher/processor vessels using”.

Dated:   November 3, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00-28842 Filed 11-08-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S