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:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Douglas, AZ Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Douglas, AZ Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3,405  | 3,901  | 4,133  | 4,041 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 8,829  | 8,050  | 10,938 | 10,551 | 7,292  | 7,223  | 15,647 | 16,102 | 46,437 | 43,953
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 44,470 | 44,836 | 46,069 | 53,679 | 64,072 | 67,144 | 81,826 | 88,171 | 67,968 | 61,497
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 60,733 | 54,297 | 49,665 | 46,287 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 104 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 104

 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
  Temporary Non-agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 2012

Mr. Alexander (for himself, Mr. Harris, Mr. Bass of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Cassidy, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Carter, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Harper, 
  Ms. Foxx, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Scalise, Mr. 
 Benishek, and Mr. Landry) introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
  Temporary Non-agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United 
                                States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to Temporary Non-
agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United States (published 
in the Federal Register on February 21, 2012), and such rule shall have 
no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60530 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER RAGINS, also known as Turk, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CV-43 USDC No. 1:00-CR-139-9
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Christopher Ragins, federal prisoner # 11321-042, was convicted by ajury ofconspiracy todistribute and to possesswith intent todistribute approximately 169.44 grams of cocaine base (Count One), distribution of approximately 7.21 grams of cocaine base (Count Nine), possession of 105.69 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute (Count 20), and possession of 3269.6 grams of marijuana with intent to distribute (Count 21). Ragins is serving concurrent United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-60530

2 480-month prison sentences as to the cocaine-base convictions and a concurrent 60-month term as to the marijuana conviction. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence. Following the district court’s denial of Ragins’s § 2255 motion, this court granted Ragins a certificate ofappealability with regard towhether trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to interviewand call as trial witnesses, Lewis Ragins, Ricardo Miller, and Jimmy Taylor, who allegedly could have testified that Ragins was not involved in the conduct for which he was convicted. The parties were advised to address whether Ragins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to this claim. When reviewing the denial of habeas relief, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and issues of law are reviewed de novo. U nited States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1994). We review mixed questions of law and fact, such as ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, de novo. Id. Ragins has not shown that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different if these witnesses had testified and, therefore, he has not shown that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 694 (1984); Miller
v. Dretke

, 420 F.3d 356, 361 (5th Cir. 2005); Alexander v. McCotter, 775 F.2d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 1985). Nor was Ragins entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See United States v. Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### LYNCH, J. v. GITTELMACHER, A.

3512 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/03/2017

Reargument Denied 9/19/2017

June Term, 2015 NO. 04481

(Philadelphia)

Appeal Dismissed
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 12,000
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 12,000 | 12,000 | 5,200  | 5,200  | 5,200  | 4,700  | 4,227  |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      |        | 0      | 0      |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### IN the INTEREST OF: D.M.T., a Minor

801 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/14/2017

CP-21-DP-0000211-2014 (Cumberland)

Affirmed
#### Phyllis ZIMMET, Appellant, v. Dorothy WINKLER, Individually, and as Trustee of the Elaine Quart Trust Dated August 5, 1999, as Amended, Appellee.

No. 4D16-4286

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

October 5, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jessica Ticktin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2015CP002801.

Affirmed.
No. 11-10201.

#### Lynn *v.*Lynn.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit99-b**

 

**CertificationsPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Richard R. Roscitt, the Chief Executive Officer of ADCTelecommunications, Inc., hereby certify that:

 

1.                                       The quarterlyreport on form 10-Q of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. for the period ended April30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of ADCTelecommunications, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Richard R. Roscitt |
|--------|------------------------|
|   | Richard R. Roscitt     |
|   | June 13, 2003          |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to ADC Telecommunications, Inc. and will be retained by ADCTelecommunications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

I, Robert E. Switz, the Chief Financial Officer of ADCTelecommunications, Inc., hereby certify that:

 

1.                                       The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. for the period ended April30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of ADCTelecommunications, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert E. Switz |
|--------|---------------------|
|   | Robert E. Switz     |
|   | June 13, 2003       |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to ADC Telecommunications, Inc. and will be retained by ADCTelecommunications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of American Antiquities, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2008 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Joseph A. Merkel
                                 ----------------------
                                 Joseph A. Merkel
                                 Chief Executive Officer

January 29, 2009
No. 12-6650.

#### Bawgus *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
152P16

#### Catawba County, by and through its Child Support Agency, ex rel., Shawna Rackley v. Jason Loggins

1. Pit Catawba County’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-711)

2. Plf Catawba County’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

3. Pit Catawba County’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. N.C. Department of Health and Human Services’ Conditional Motion for Leave to File *Amicus*Brief

1. Allowed 04/25/2016

2. Allowed

3. Allowed

4. Allowed
H. Con. Res. 108 Agreed to March 22, 2012

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 

19, 2012, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the 

days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with 

such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1024 

To prohibit entities from using Federal funds to contribute to political 

campaigns or participate in lobbying activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Ms. TSONGAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit entities from using Federal funds to contribute 

to political campaigns or participate in lobbying activities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Taxpayer Money 

5 for Corporate Campaigns Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1024 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 

2 CAMPAIGN AND LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. 

3 (a) PROHIBITION.—With respect to Federal funds re4 ceived by an entity, other than a natural person, it shall 

5 be unlawful for such entity to— 

6 (1) use such funds to advocate the election or 

7 defeat of a political candidate; 

8 (2) use such funds for voter registration activi9 ties or get-out-the-vote activities; 

10 (3) use such funds to engage in any lobbying 

11 activity; or 

12 (4) donate such funds to any entity that advo13 cates for the election or defeat of a political can14 didate or engages in lobbying activities. 

15 (b) EXCEPTION FOR ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY

16 LAW.—Subsection (a) does not apply to the use of funds 

17 by an entity for an activity specifically authorized by Fed18 eral law, rule, or regulation. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
No. 12-6102.

#### Wilson *v.*Gavagni et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### COM. v. INGRAM, J.

1262 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/07/2017

CP-23-CR-0001698-2012. (Delaware)

Affirmed
#### Margie I. FERNANDEZ and Juan G. Fernandez, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage d/b/a America’s Servicing Company, and U.S. Bank National Association, Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-4107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 13, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Margaret H. Schreiber, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
#### COM. v. RISOLDI, C.

1864 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

7/17/2017

CP-09-MD-0001604-2016, CP-09-MD-0001605-2016

(Bucks)

Affirmed
IA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 88 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify 

the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited 

liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws 

of any state, the United States, or any foreign state. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 

Mr. MCGOVERN introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States 

to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or 

other corporate entities established by the laws of any 

state, the United States, or any foreign state. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 88 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish 

5 this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Con6 stitution to be the rights of natural persons. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as 

8 used in this Constitution do not include corporations, lim9 ited liability companies or other corporate entities estab10 lished by the laws of any State, the United States, or any 

11 foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to 

12 such regulation as the people, through their elected State 

13 and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are oth14 erwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the 

15 States under this Constitution. 

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing contained herein shall be con17 strued to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, 

18 freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of 

19 association and all such other rights of the people, which 

20 rights are inalienable.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.4  -  Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to
		  Certificateholders as of December 31, 2005


	Lehman XS Trust
	Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
	Series 2005-7N

		Beginning	Principal	Interest	Ending
	Class	Balance		Distributed	Distributed	Balance

	1-A1A	627,987,000.00 	1,313,243.21 	2,023,251.13 	626,673,756.79
	1-A1B	418,656,000.00 	875,491.29 	1,353,528.99 	417,780,508.71
	1-A2A	209,328,000.00 	437,745.65 	680,682.28 	208,890,254.35
	1-A3	196,245,000.00 	410,386.54 	634,466.72 	195,834,613.46
	2-A1	334,524,000.00 	316,315.53 	1,028,303.55 	334,207,684.47
	2-A2	52,269,000.00 	49,423.95 	153,106.01 	52,219,576.05
	3-A1	336,426,000.00 	3,475,319.63 	1,135,437.75 	332,950,680.37
	3-A2	40,792,000.00 	421,386.09 	138,284.88 	40,370,613.91
	M1-I	47,714,000.00 	0.00 		140,711.05 	47,714,000.00
	M2-I	23,857,000.00 	0.00 		70,355.53 	23,857,000.00
	M3-I	9,940,000.00 	0.00 		29,313.57 	9,940,000.00
	M4-I	13,916,000.00 	0.00 		41,039.00 	13,916,000.00
	M5-I	9,940,000.00 	0.00 		29,313.57 	9,940,000.00
	M6-I	9,940,000.00 	0.00 		29,313.57 	9,940,000.00
	M7-I	9,940,000.00 	0.00 		29,313.57 	9,940,000.00
	M8-I	9,940,000.00 	0.00 		29,313.57 	9,940,000.00
	M1-II	22,288,000.00 	0.00 		82,242.72 	22,288,000.00
	M2-II	2,102,000.00 	0.00 		7,914.03 	2,102,000.00
	M3-II	7,990,000.00 	0.00 		32,179.73 	7,990,000.00
	M4-II	3,153,000.00 	0.00 		14,117.56 	3,153,000.00
	M5-II	2,102,000.00 	0.00 		9,411.71 	2,102,000.00
	M6-II	2,102,000.00 	0.00 		9,411.71 	2,102,000.00
	X-I	13,922,831.99 	0.00 		0.00 		13,963,891.17
	X-II	3,578,135.63 	0.00 		395,736.91 	3,995,064.79
#### State v. Allen

106,832

07/19/13

Denied.

Unpublished
IV 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 48 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should 

name a Littoral Combat Ship the U.S.S. Ypsilanti, in honor of Ypsilanti, 

Michigan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2011 

Mr. DINGELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the 

Navy should name a Littoral Combat Ship the U.S.S. 

Ypsilanti, in honor of Ypsilanti, Michigan. 

Whereas the Navy proposes the procurement of 55 Littoral 

Combats Ships; 

Whereas the Navy has stated it will name Littoral Combats 

Ships for small towns and communities and mid-size cities; 

Whereas the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, Michigan, with a combined population of 74,439, is a small 

city that satisfies the criteria for naming Littoral Combats Ships; 

Whereas Ypsilanti, Michigan, is named in honor of General 

Demetrius Ypsilanti, who is considered a Greek war hero 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 48 IH 

for his contributions to achieving Greece’s independence 

in 1829; 

Whereas in 1829, the Michigan settlement of Woodruff’s 

Grove combined land acquired by three prominent settlers 

and changed its name to the City of Ypsilanti; 

Whereas Ypsilanti is located in the county that hosts the only 

Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps unit in Michigan; 

Whereas the NROTC unit prepares students from Eastern 

Michigan University, located in Ypsilanti, for service as 

officers in both the United States Navy and the United 

States Marine Corps; and 

Whereas the Littoral Combats Ships are designed to operate 

in littoral, or close-to-shore environments, and a Navy 

vessel the bearing the name U.S.S. Ypsilanti would help 

convey the American ideals of freedom and democracy to 

nations struggling to achieve democracy: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Sec3 retary of the Navy should name a Littoral Combat Ship 

4 in honor of Ypsilanti, Michigan. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
No. 12M49.

#### Gibbs *v.*Thomas, Warden.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.