alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Oregon Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Gas Wells  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Oregon Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Gas Wells  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2     
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 3      | 3      | 2,790  | 4,080  | 4,600  | 3,800  | 4,000  | 2,500 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2,815  | 2,741  | 2,580  | 4,003  | 4,200  | 2,520  | 1,743  | 1,382  | 1,263  | 1,555 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,412  | 1,112  | 837    | 731    | 467    | 454    | 621    | 409    | 778    | 821   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,407  | 1,344  | 770    | 770    | 1,142  | 848    | 801    | 659    | 499    | 399   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 320    | 205    | 13     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
319P16

#### James E. Price v. Larry Smith, Interim Chief of Police, Durham Police Department, and Michael D. Andrews, Sheriff of Durham County, North Carolina

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Durham County (COAP16-290)

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

1. Denied 08/29/2016

2. Allowed 08/29/2016
Order filed January 22, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-14-00331-CV

__________

IN RE TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND 

ELEVEN DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS U.S. 

CURRENCY AND JERRY DEWITT SMITH

Original Mandamus Proceeding

O R D E R

Relator, Jerry Dewitt Smith, has brought a mandamus action against the 

Honorable George D. “Jody” Gilles, Judge of the 142nd District Court of Midland

County, Texas. He alleges that Judge Gilles has not ruled on several motions, 

including a motion for summary judgment filed by the State on July 30, 2007, and 

set for hearing on January 14, 2011; a motion for return of property filed by 

Relator on August 8, 2011; and a motion for summary judgment filed by Relator 

on September 10, 2012.

The real party in interest, the State of Texas, is requested to file a response to 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus with our court on or before February 6, 
2

2015. In the interim, if this court receives written notice that the motions at issue

have been ruled on by the trial court, we will deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus because the relief requested by Relator will have already occurred and 

the issue presented in the petition would then be moot.

PER CURIAM 

January 22, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
No. 12-5936.

#### Smith *v.*Koerner et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Chaffee SUAREZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0501

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 26, 2017

L.T. NO.: 93-33116

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2416-2417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
[OJP(NIJ)-1148]


National Institute of Justice Solicitation for Evaluation of 
Victims of Crime Act State Compensation and Assistance Programs, 1998

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 
Justice.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement of the availability of the National Institute of 
Justice ``Evaluation of Victims of Crime Act State Compensation and 
Assistance Programs, 1998.''

DATES: Due date for receipt of proposals is close of business March 16, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the solicitation, please 
call NCJRS 1-800-851-3420. For general information about application 
procedures for solicitations, please call the U.S. Department of 
Justice Response Center 1-800-421-6770.

[[Page 2417]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    This action is authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968, Secs. 201-03, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3721-23 
(1994).

Background

    The National Institute of Justice is calling for proposals for an 
evaluation of Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funded compensation and 
assistance programs. These programs have an overall goal of providing a 
seamless web of services and support to reduce the financial, physical, 
psychological, and emotional costs of victimization. One grant of 
$750,000 for a 30-month period, will be awarded to evaluate the 
effectiveness of these programs in meeting their goals and victim 
needs.
    Interested organizations should call the National Criminal Justice 
Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420 to obtain a copy of 
``Evaluation of Victims of Crime Act State Compensation and Assistance 
Programs'' (refer to document no. SL000242). For World Wide Web access, 
connect to either NIJ at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm, or 
the NCJRS Justice Information Center at <a href="http://www.ncjrs.org/
fedgrant.htm#nij">http://www.ncjrs.org/
fedgrant.htm#nij</a>.
Jeremy Travis,
Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 98-1042 Filed 1-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
#### IN the INTEREST OF: K.F.M.R., a Minor

1979 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/17/2017

CP-51-AP-0000392-2013

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
140P16

#### Timothy S. Boyd v. Gregory M. Rekuc, M.D., and Raleigh Adult Medicine, P.A.

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-780)

Denied
No. 12-5735.

#### Lemons *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60619 Summary Calendar

LIANJU YANG,

Petitioner

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 848 754

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lianju Yang petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA” ). He challenges the denial of relief from removal, including applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Lianju Yang’s brief , through counsel Donglai Yang, is virtually identical to the brief he filed with the BIA. The brief devotes less than two pages to his argument, advances conclusory assertions, and only makes one statutory or

* 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 September 12, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60619 Document: 00514152609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2017No. 16

- 60619

2 case citation — to an out

- of -circuit case

— while his list of authorities denotes five cases that are not cited in his brief. Be cause Lianju Yang ’s brief has not meaningfully challenged the BIA’s reasoning as to whether he demonstrated that his actual or imputed political opinion was a central reason driving the harm he suffered from Chinese officials, he is deemed to have waived the claim. United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446

– 47 (5th Cir. 2010 ) ; F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Therefore, the petition for review is DENIED. This is not the first time we have rejected claims brought by counsel for failure to adequately brief. See Poscual- Jimenez v. Sessions , 678 F. App ’ x 191, 192 (5th Cir. 2017)

. Sanctions may be warranted where we are “ left with the inescapable impression that [the appellant ’ s] arguments on appeal were so totally without merit and his briefing so sloppily prepared.” Macklin v. City of New Orleans , 293 F.3d 237, 241 (5th Cir. 2002). We have imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for the filing of a “ ‘slap- dash’ excuse for a brief” after noting that “ poor qual ity of briefing is inexcusable. ” Carmon v. Lubrizol Corp. , 17 F.3d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 1994). Counsel is therefore WARNED that we will impose sanctions for f uture frivolous filings. See Cilauro v. Thielsch Eng’g , 123 F. App’x 588, 591 (5th Cir. 2005) (issuing a warning to counsel for filing a frivolous brief). Case: 16-60619 Document: 00514152609 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2017
338A95-2

#### State v. Keith Antonia Wagner

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied
IA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 37 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission 

with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

Mr. WALDEN (for himself, Mr. UPTON, Mr. TERRY, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. 

WHITFIELD, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. BASS of New Hampshire, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. 

KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. BARTON of Texas, 

Mr. OLSON, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. LATTA, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. 

LANCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. GRAVES of 

Georgia, and Mr. DIAZ-BALART) introduced the following joint resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet 

and broadband industry practices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Communications Commission relating to the matter 

5 of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry 

6 practices (Report and Order FCC 10–201, adopted by the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 37 IH 

1 Commission on December 21, 2010), and such rule shall 

2 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10976]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[MO 053-1053b; FRL-6003-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Control of Landfill Gas Emissions 
From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the Missouri state 111(d) plan for 
controlling landfill gas emissions from existing municipal solid waste 
(MSW) landfills. The plan was submitted to fulfill the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act. The state plan establishes emission limits for 
existing MSW landfills, and provides for the implementation and 
enforcement of those limits.
    In the final rules section of the Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving the state's submittal as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipates no relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse 
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further 
activity is contemplated and the direct final rule will become 
effective. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct 
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this 
time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
May 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota 
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: April 9, 1998.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 98-10976 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-556

In Re: RONALD FLOYD JACKSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-90-254, CA-92-1794-2BC)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Floyd Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Floyd Jackson brought this mandamus petition seeking an

order compelling the United States District Court for the District

of South Carolina to act on Jackson's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. Because we note that the docket sheet reflects that the district court denied the motion by minute entry dated May 24, 1995,

we conclude that Jackson's petition is moot. Accordingly, we grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for a

writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in Kentucky  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in Kentucky  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 3.94   | 3.76   | 3.32   | 2.98   | 2.94   | 3.01  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3.07   | 2.83   | 3.02   | 3.21   | 3.13   | 2.80   | 3.41   | 3.83   | 3.23   | 3.27  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.93   | 6.32   | 4.45   | 6.11   | 7.28   | 9.69   | 9.07   | 8.22   | 10.14  | 5.98  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5.69   | 5.18   | 4.17   | 4.47   | 5.16   | 3.96   | 3.35   | 3.92   | 3.92   | 3.37  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.81   | 4.09   | 6.31   | 4.05   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 17, 2017

NO. 03-16-00556-CV

In the Matter of J. G. S.

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

VACATED AND REMANDED ON REHEARING --

OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on August 12, 2016. The Court’s 

opinion and judgment dated February 10, 2017, are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the juvenile court’s 

transfer order. Therefore, the Court vacates the juvenile court’s transfer order and remands this 

case to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. The 

appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Calif--onshore Natural Gas Vented and Flared  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Calif--onshore Natural Gas Vented and Flared  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 751    | 580    | 830    | 1,250  | 1,268  | 1,590  | 1,952  | 1,367 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,210  | 1,717  | 2,690  | 3,940  | 3,215  | 2,120  | 1,562  | 1,879  | 2,127  | 2,501 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,790  | 2,424  | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,520  | 1,459  | 1,490  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-6114.

#### Tichot *v.*Maine State Police.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ATLAS PIPELINE HOLDINGS, L.P.



|                                           |  |             
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------
|Name                                       |  | Jurisdiction
|Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC            |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.              |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P. |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline New York, LLC               |  | Pennsylvania
|Atlas Pipeline Ohio, LLC                   |  | Pennsylvania
|Atlas Pipeline Pennsylvania, LLC           |  | Pennsylvania
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent LLC           |  | Delaware    
|Saddleback Pipeline, LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent KansOK, LLC   |  | Delaware    
|Elk City Oklahoma Pipeline, L.P.           |  | Texas       
|Elk City Oklahoma GP, LLC                  |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Arkansas Pipeline LLC                |  | Oklahoma    
|Atlas Pipeline Finance Corp.               |  | Delaware    
|NOARK Pipeline System, Limited Partnership |  | Arkansas    
|Mid-Continent Arkansas Pipeline, LLC       |  | Arkansas    
|Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC                |  | Oklahoma    
|Ozark Gas Gathering, LLC                   |  | Oklahoma    
|NOARK Energy Services, LLC                 |  | Oklahoma    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestOk, LLC   |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex, LLC  |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Chaney Dell, LLC                     |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Midkiff, LLC                         |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline McKean, LLC                 |  | Pennsylvania
|ECOP Gas Company, LLC                      |  | Delaware