alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Maryland Natural Gas Percentage Total Commercial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Maryland Natural Gas Percentage Total Commercial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 1.53   | 1.53   | 1.55   | 1.45   | 1.55   | 1.91   | 1.91  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1.75   | 1.98   | 2.04   | 2.22   | 2.24   | 2.32   | 2.22   | 2.35   | 2.23   | 2.22  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2.18   | 2.14   | 2.22   | 2.16   | 2.16   | 2.19   | 2.27   | 2.28   | 2.20   | 2.17  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.14   | 2.01   | 2.11   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 12-6909.

#### Barahona *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Maxwell, Bill

To: Cortney Higgins (Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov)

Cc: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: Revised draft final MATS reconsideration preamble and reg

Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:52:00 PM

Attachments: 030513 vs 031913_redline.docx

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Final_20130319.docx

Cortney –

Here is the revised version of the preamble along with a redline/strikeout against the March 5,

2013, version.

Thanks.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-5430

FAX: 919-541-5450
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------



                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-80CB
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-80CB


      The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 28, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                      Dated: March 28, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint[6/15/2011 11:06:57 AM]

You are here: EPA Home Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances Pollution Prevention & Toxics High

Production Volume (HPV) Challenge High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) Submission Report

High Production Volume Information

System (HPVIS)

Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

Submission Report

Submission Information

Submission ID : 25331185 Submission Name : 928-72-3

AR Number : 

Chemical Information

CAS Number : 928-72-3 Ninth Collective Index Name : Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-, disodium salt

Submitter Information

Submitter's Name : EPA

Address : 

City : Washington

State : DC

ZIP/Postal Code: 

Country: 

Type of Submitter : Company

Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Additional Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Sponsor Information

Sponsor's Name : EPA

Address : 

City : 

State : 

ZIP/Postal Code : 

Country : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

Share
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint[6/15/2011 11:06:57 AM]

EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint

Print As-Is

Last updated on Wednesday, June 15, 2011

E-Mail Address : 

Type of Sponsor : Company

Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address :
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should be unpublished. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50023

Summary Calendar

LILLIAN MARIC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

KVIA-TV/MARSH MEDIA OF EL PASO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-95-CV-77)

July 12, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM 1 :

The plaintiff was a news anchor for the defendant television

station. After her employment was terminated, the plaintiff filed

a racial and national origin discrimination claim against the

defendant. The jury found for the plaintiff on her racial

discrimination claim and also awarded her punitive dam ages. The2

defendant filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law

or, in the alternative, motion for new trial. The district court

denied the motion.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the denial of its motion

for judgment as a matter of law was err or. We have reviewed the

record and the thorough order of the district court and AFFIRM the

district court's order for essentially the reasons stated therein.

The defendant further argues on appeal that the district court

improperly instructed the jury on burdens of proof. A party

objecting on appeal to a district court's jury instructio ns must

show that the jury charge as a whole created "substantial and

ineradicable doubt" as to whether the jury was properly guided in

its deliberations and that the challenged instruction c ould have

affe cted the outcome of the case. F .D.I.C. v. Mijalis

, 15 F.3d

1314, 1318 (5th Cir. 1994). The defendant has not met this burden.

The defendant next argues that the district court erred by

admitting into evidence certain hearsay remarks and committed plain

error by failing to give a limiting instruction on such hearsay

evidence. The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion

of the district court, and absent pr oof of abuse, we will not

disturb a district court's evidentiary ruling. Jon-T Chem., Inc.

v. Freeport Chem. Co.

, 704 F.2d 1412, 1417 (5 th Cir. 1983); s ee

United States v. Abel

, 469 U.S. 45 (1984). The admission of the

testimony in question was not an abuse of discretion.3

Last, the defendant argues that the district court committed

p lain error by gratuitously interjecting a prejudicial remark.

Specifically, the district judge stated, "Let the record show it's

okay to lie to the newspaper or to a TV station." The defendant

never objected to the comment, and in context, the remark did not

constitute plain error.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration


Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) / Joint Planning 
Advisory Group (JPAG)

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Synopsis of April 23-24, 1998 meeting with VISA participants.

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

    On April 23-24, 1998, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the 
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) co-hosted a meeting 
of the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) Joint Planning 
Advisory Group (JPAG) at the United States Transportation Command, 
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
    Meeting attendance was by invitation only, due to the nature of the 
information discussed and the need for a government-issued security 
clearance. Of the 27 U.S.-flag carrier corporate participants enrolled 
in VISA at the time of the meeting, 9 were represented, as well as 
representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department 
of Transportation (DOT).
    Government representatives provided operational briefs for the 
USTRANSCOM command post exercise Turbo Challenge 98 which was the 
principal focus of the JPAG. During the exercise, VISA Stage III was 
activated and VISA capacity was allocated. In addition to evaluating 
previously developed Concepts of Operation, the exercise tested VISA 
carriers' ability to position vessel capacity to meet VISA Stage III 
requirements for a major regional contingency.
    The full text of the VISA program is published in 62 FR 6837-6845, 
dated February 13, 1997. One of the program requirements is that MARAD 
periodically publish a list of VISA participants in the Federal 
Register. As of April 28, 1998, the following commercial U.S.-flag 
vessel operators are enrolled in VISA with MARAD: Alaska Cargo 
Transport, Inc., American Auto Carriers, Inc., American Automar, Inc., 
American President Lines, Ltd., American Ship Management, LLC, Central 
Gulf Lines, Inc., Crowley Maritime Corporation, Dixie Fuels II, Ltd., 
Falgout Brothers, Inc., Farrell Lines Incorporated, First American Bulk 
Carrier Corp., Lykes Lines Limited, L.L.C., Maersk Line Limited, Matson 
Navigation Company, Inc., Moby Marine Corporation, NPR, Inc., OSG Car 
Carriers, Inc., Osprey Shipholding Corp., LLC, RR & VO L.L.C., Sealift, 
Inc., Sea-Land Service, Inc., Smith Maritime, Totem Ocean Trailer 
Express, Inc., Trailer Bridge, Inc., TransAtlantic Lines LLC, Van 
Ommeren Shipping (USA) LLC, and Waterman Steamship Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Raymond R. Barberesi, 
Director, Office of Sealift Support, (202) 366-2323.

    Dated: May 4, 1998.

    By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12128 Filed 5-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
#### Michael FULGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3178

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 12, 2018

Michael Fulgham, Sneads, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Fulgham appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for additional jail credit. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801. He argues that in the absence of any evidence showing he specifically waived credit for jail time, the trial court erred in relying on his written plea form to deny his motion. We agree and reverse. See Pippins v. State, 147 So.3d 665, 665-66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

The facts of this case are virtually identical to Pippins, where we reversed an order summarily denying the appellant’s motion for additional jail credit because the written plea form did not expressly provide that the appellant waived additional jail credit, and the appellant specifically alleged that she had not waived the additional credit. Jd. at 665. Here, despite the notation on the plea form that Fulgham would receive fifty-one days credit for time served, he insists that he did not waive any additional credit for the time he served in jail. As such, a factual dispute exists re*1184garding waiver that may require a hearing. See id.; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e). We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand for attachment of additional portions of the record, such as the plea colloquy, specifically refuting Fulg-ham’s claim'br, in the absence of such records, for an evidentiary hearing.. See Pippins, 147 So.3d at 666; Louis v. State, 143 So.3d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“When, -as in this case, -a factual dispute exists, and the files and records do not conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing is generally required.").

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions, . ■

TORPY, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

November 4, 2005 

 

Mercury General Corporation 

Los Angeles, California 

 

Re: Registration Statement No. 333-62228, 333-01583 and 333-125460 

 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated November 4, 2005 related to our reviews of interim financial information. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a reportprepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Maynard Oil
Company's Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form
10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          23,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,699
<PP&E>                                         106,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           489
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,502
<SALES>                                         19,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,068
<CGS>                                            7,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,989
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,588
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90
        

</TABLE>
(a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon
such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Charles P. CooleyCharles P. CooleyChief Financial OfficerNovember 6, 2009
**EXHIBIT 3**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

 

**MAYTAG CORPORATION** (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of theState of Delaware, **DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:**

 

**FIRST:** The Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a meeting duly called and held, adopted the following resolution proposing an amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation (the “Certificate ofIncorporation of the Corporation”): 

 

**RESOLVED,** that the Board of Directors of the Corporation hereby declares it advisable that the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended by deleting Article Ninth in its entirety. 

 

**SECOND:** Thereafter, on May 8, 2003, pursuant to the resolution of theBoard of Directors of the Corporation, the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting thenecessary number of shares of capital stock as required by statute and the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation were voted in favor of adopting the foregoing amendment. 

 

**THIRD:** The foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 242 of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

 

**FOURTH:** The capital of the Corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of the foregoing amendment 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its Secretary this 4th day of June, 2003.
#### COM. v. WATLEY, J.

3022 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/11/2017

CP-52-SA-0000018-2016

(Pike)

Vacated
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1151 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1151

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to make risk-based assessments 
    on financial companies to recoup the amount of assistance made 
available for unemployed homeowners under the Emergency Mortgage Relief 
     Program and for States and communities under the Neighborhood 
                         Stabilization Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2011

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of the Treasury to make risk-based assessments 
    on financial companies to recoup the amount of assistance made 
available for unemployed homeowners under the Emergency Mortgage Relief 
     Program and for States and communities under the Neighborhood 
                         Stabilization Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Mortgage Relief and 
Neighborhood Stabilization Programs Cost Recoupment Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. COST RECOUPMENT.

    Subtitle H of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 2205 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 1499. FUNDING OFFSET FOR EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF AND 
              NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAMS.

    ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall, for the purpose of 
offsetting the costs of assistance under sections 1496 and 1497 of this 
Act and not later than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning 
on the date of the enactment of the Emergency Mortgage Relief and 
Neighborhood Stabilization Programs Cost Recoupment Act of 2011, make 
risk-based assessments in the total amount of $2,500,000,000 on 
financial companies that manage hedge funds with $10,000,000,000 or 
more in assets under management on a consolidated basis and on other 
financial companies with $50,000,000,000 or more in total consolidated 
assets, subject to such terms and conditions as the Treasury Secretary 
may establish with the concurrence of the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System and the Board of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation. Any such assessments collected shall be covered into the 
General Fund of the Treasury.''.
                                 <all>
```