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. Refinery Isomers Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|U.S. Refinery Isomers 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                                                                                                                            |         |         | 219,900 | 212,000 | 208,400 | 218,800 | 257,600 | 325,803 | 465,268 | 468,723
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 455,538 | 490,338 | 494,468 | 499,318 | 498,718 | 501,675 | NA      | 577,378 | NA      | 666,801
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 642,600 | 654,228 | 657,515 | 678,913 | 688,001 | 703,191 | 708,357 | 738,771 | 726,802 | 735,703
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 715,317 | 703,042 | 687,860 | 736,913 | 738,580 | 757,286 | 755,245 | 749,345 | 743,360 | 740,185
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 772,440 | 744,358 | 758,218 | 767,518 | 778,968 |         |         |         |         |        
|- = 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
Case 5:22-cv-00111-H-BQ   Document 24   Filed 08/04/23    Page 1 of 2   PageID 913

Case 5:22-cv-00111-H-BQ   Document 24   Filed 08/04/23    Page 2 of 2   PageID 914
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MELVIN UMANA-GARCIA

IN TI{E UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR T}IE NORTI{ERN DISTRICT OF

DALLAS DIVISION

CASE NO.:

$

$

$

$

$

REPORT AI\D RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

MELVTN UMANA-GARCTA, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees' 125 F.3d 261 (sthcir. 1997)'

has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. n. Crim.p. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the one-count

Indictrnent filed August 24,2o2z.After cautioning and examining MELVIN UI4ANA-GARCIA under oath concerning

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I deteniined that the gu-ilty plea was-knowledgeable and voluntary and that the

offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact coritainlng each of lhe essential elements of such offense' I

therefore recommend'tfiut,rr" piea of guilty be accepted, and that MELVIN UMANA-GARCIA be adjudged guilty of Illegal

Reentry After Removal from the United Staies, in violation of I U.S.C. $ 1326(a), and have sentence imposed

accoldingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the district judge,

d The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(aXl) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

! The Government does not oppose release.

11 The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

11 I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person Lr the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c).

The Government opposes release.

The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 31a3(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

under g 3 la5(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2)the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: March 23,2023

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Repo( and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its

service shall bar an aggrievea p-urty from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. $636(bXlXB).

n

n

n

tJ.s. l)ts]'ltl(:T (loLjKr

\oRTl ulRN t)ls]'ttl(:T Olt Tlix^s

FILED

l\lAR 2 j 2023

-3 1 $$ittt<, U.S' Dlsl1UcT

IRIVTA CARRILLO

IJNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ruDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00318-B Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 39
# 5.1.1

# 5.1.2

# 5.1.3

# 5.1.4

# 5.1.5

# 5.1.6

# 5.1.7

# 5.1.8

# 5.1.9

# 5.1.10

# 5.1.11

# 5.1.12

# 5.1.13

# 5.1.14

# 5.1.15

# 5.1.16

# 5.1.17

# 5.1.18

# 5.1.19

# 5.1.20

# 5.1.21

# 5.1.22

# 5.1.23

# 5.1.24

# 5.1.25

# 5.1.26

# 5.1.27

# 5.1.28

# 5.1.29

# 5.1.30

# 5.2.1

# 5.2.2

# 5.2.3

# 5.2.4

# 5.2.5

# 5.2.6

# 5.2.7

# 5.2.8

# 5.2.9

# 5.2.10

# 5.2.11

# 5.2.12

# 5.2.13

# 5.2.14

# 5.2.15

# 5.2.16

# 5.2.17

# 5.2.18

# 5.2.19

# 5.2.20

# 5.3.1

# 5.3.2

# 5.3.3

# 5.3.4

# 5.3.5

# 5.3.6

# 5.3.7

# 5.3.8

# 5.3.9

# 5.3.10

# 5.3.11

# 5.3.12

# 5.3.13

# 5.3.14

# 5.3.15

# 5.3.16

# 5.3.17

# 5.3.18

# 5.3.19

# 5.3.20

# 5.3.21

# 5.3.22

# 5.3.23

# 5.4.1

# 5.4.2

# 5.4.3

# 5.4.4

# 5.4.5

# 5.4.6

# 5.4.7

# 5.4.8

# 5.4.9

# 5.4.10

# 5.4.11

# 5.4.12

# 5.4.13

# 5.4.14

# 5.4.15

# 5.4.16

# 5.4.17

# 5.4.18
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Delaware Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Delaware 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                                                                                                                            |        |        | 8,000  | 8,000  | 8,000  | 8,000  | 8,000  | 8,000  | 8,000  | 8,000 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 8,000  | 11,500 | 11,500 | 11,500 | 11,500 | 12,900 | NA     | 9,100  | NA     | 9,100 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 9,100  | 10,900 | 10,900 | 11,700 | 11,700 | 11,700 | 11,700 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729 | 11,729
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 11,729 | 12,500 | 12,500 | 12,500 | 12,500 |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0746** Docket Number
**2008 -**  **SW -**  **35 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket MDHI service b ulletin, SB500N - 029R3 for the Model 500N helicopters, and SB600N 046R3 for the Model 600N helicopters, dated July 9, 2008. MD Helicopters, Inc., SB900 - 107R1, dated March 14, 2008, for the Model MD900 helicopters.


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Adm inistration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 238 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 238

        To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 1993

Mr. Smith of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Kopetski, 
  and Ms. Furse) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
        To commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Oregon Trail.

Whereas of all the western trails used by fur traders, gold seekers, 
        missionaries, and emigrants, the Oregon Trail was the most important to 
        the western settlement of this great Nation;
Whereas in the year 1843, the first major wave of humanity left Independence, 
        Missouri, and travelled 2,170 miles in covered wagons across sagebrush, 
        plains, mountains, and rivers to the Willamette Valley in Oregon 
        Territory;
Whereas over 400,000 men, women, and children risked their lives in this 
        greatest migration in American history;
Whereas this Nation was expanded from ocean to ocean, as settlement of the Old 
        Oregon Territory forced Great Britain to relinquish this land to the 
        United States;
Whereas the pioneering spirit of the Oregon Trail emigrants embodies the spirit 
        of the American people;
Whereas Americans have an ever-increasing desire to understand our national 
        heritage;
Whereas in 1978, Congress enacted the National Trails System Act, designating 
        the Oregon Trail as a national historic trail, in recognition of the 
        vital role it played in our Nation's history; and
Whereas in 1993, the American people will seek to rekindle the pioneering spirit 
        of the ``Great Migration'' and an official Oregon Trail sesquicentennial 
        wagon train will journey across the Nation, arriving in Oregon City, 
        Oregon on September 4, 1993: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That September 4, 1993, is 
hereby designated as ``National Oregon Trail Day''. The President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe this day with the appropriate 
ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
June 11, 2015 

Mr. Jeremy Hyler 

1902 Pavilion Drive 

Whitsett, NC 27377 

 

Dear Mr. Hyler: 

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

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

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 28, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1946), 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, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

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

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

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

What 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 exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not 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) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) 

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (2) (b) (2) (b) (2)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (2) (b) (2)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Subject: Docket Submission ofTechnical Report, "Technical Analysis 

Supporting the NPRM to Update Electrical Safety 

Requirements in FMVSS No. 305. 'Electric-powered 

vehicles; electrolyte spillage and electric shock protection"' 

Date: MAR 0 8 2016 

L~ri K. Summers • Ilk. J{JL___ 

Director X/ 

From: 

Office of Crashworthiness Standards 

To: o1~1')o. NHTSA-20 16-0029 

Thru: a~~au h A ,r f) - Chief Counsel 

The technical report, "Technical Analysis Supporting the NPRM to Update Electrical 

Safety Requirements in FMVSS No. 305, 'Electric-powered vehicles; electrolyte spillage 

and electrical shock protection,"' is attached for inclusion into the referenced public docket. 

This document provides a technical analysis of direct and indirect contact protection for 

high voltage sources specified in Global Technical Regulation No. 13 and those requested 

by the Auto Alliance in its petition for rulemaking. This document is being submitted as 

supporting information for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update the electrical 

safety requirements in FMVSS No. 305. 

Please submit this memorandum to Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0029. 

Attachment: 

• Technical Analysis Supporting the NPRM to Update Electrical Safety 

Requirements in FMVSS No. 305, "Electric- powered vehicles; electrolyte spillage 

and electrical shock protecti on"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DANIEL KING,

 Petitioner

 v.

RIVERWATCH CONDOMINIUM

OWNER'S ASSOCIATION,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 60 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 141/2006

of 26 January 2006         

specifying the extent to which applications lodged in January 2006 for import certificates in respect of young male bovine animals for fattening as part of a tariff quota provided for in Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 of 29 June 2005 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for young male bovine animals for fattening (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006) (2), and in particular Articles 1(4) and 4 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import certificates made in the month of January 2006 pursuant to Article 3(3), second subparagraph, third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 are hereby met in full.

2.   The number of animals referred to in Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 992/2005 is 167 730.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 January 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 168, 30.6.2005, p. 16.

----
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 174

JOINT RESOLUTION

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 174

JOINT RESOLUTION

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United

4 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita5 tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu

6 thereof $4,731,900,000,000.

Passed the House of Representatives March 31,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### CALDWELL v. STATE.

No. 26076.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 26, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged in different counts with the offense of forgery and knowingly passing a forged instrument. His punishment was assessed at confinement in the ■state penitentiary for a term of three years.

Prior to the trial of the case appellant offered an affidavit as contemplated by the statute, Art. 731, C.C.P., in which he denied his signature to said check, and denied that he had drawn the same or any part thereof, and denied his endorsement thereof. The statute referred to provides as follows:

> “It is competent to give evidence of handwriting by comparison, made by ■experts or by the jury. Proof by. comparison only shall not be sufficient to ■establish the handwriting of a witness who denies his signature under oath.”

All of the proof in this cause relative to the making of this. alleged forged instrument depends alone upon the evidence of handwriting by comparison. We find no further, proof of any kind relative to the making of this instrument.

The trial court in his charge submitted to the jury both counts of the indictment, and the jury in its verdict found appellant guilty of Count Ño. 1, which count was relative to the making of' such instrument. ¡

We find that the testimony is lacking in support of the first count of the indictment except by proof of handwriting. As heretofore alluded to, appellant denied his signature under oath. Therefore, the testimony wholly fails to meet the requirement of the law relative to the making of this instrument.

Under these circumstances, the judgment is reversed' and the cause remanded.