alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|California--State Offshore Natural Gas Removed from Natural Gas   (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|California--State Offshore Natural Gas Removed from Natural Gas   (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0      | 3,287  | NA     | NA     | NA     | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | NA     | 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 24190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[UT-050-4210-05; UTU-72937]


Notice of Realty Action

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In notice document Vol. 63, No. 62 beginning on page 15858 in 
the issue of Wednesday of April 1, 1998, make the following correction: 
The legal land description was written as follows:

Salt Lake Meridian

T.28 S., R.11 E.,
    Sec. 4 W\1/2\NE\1/4\.

    Containing 80 acres more or less.

    The legal description should be changed to read as follows:

Salt Lake Meridian

T.28 S., R.11 E.,
    Sec. 14 W\1/2\NE\1/4\.

    Containing 80 acres more or less.

    Dated: April 21, 1998.
Dave Henderson,
Acting District Manager
[FR Doc. 98-11595 Filed 4-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-M
# Rupprecht Law P. A.

3 24 Datura Street , Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E : jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

June 24 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590

RE: A dditional I nfo rmation for Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc. (Docket FAA

- 2015

- 1055 ) Regarding Why Granting the Petition Will Benefit the Public.

Dear Sir or Madam: The Petitioner intends to produce picture and video content. If the petitioner does not have the option of using the Petitioner’s UA, the only other way to obtain the aerial footage is by using manned
aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals on the ground. There are no pilots on board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the public on the ground in case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most manned aircraft have only one engine. Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution. In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust which affects the environment while the UA of the petitio ner are electric and do not produce any emission. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.2

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there was an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less chance of individuals being injured from an explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less damage in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter
crash

. Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than manned aircraft. Thus, the public benefits because the danger of a mid

- air collision is lessened If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222

- 6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
June 10, 2015 

Mr. Robert Barber 

2208 Hedgeapple Road 

Plattsmouth, NE 68048 

Dear Mr. Barber: 

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 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 March 27, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−0811), 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. 
2 

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. 

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 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RFMSII Series 2006-HSA1 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

   In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably relied on information
   provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  parties:  JPMorgan Chase Bank,
   N.A. and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:     /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ----------------------
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title:    Managing Director
#### COM. v. NELSON, J.

1450 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/31/2017

CP-63-CR-0000280-2015

(Washington)

Vacated
1The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2326

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Javier Sanchez-Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 25, 2000

 Filed: February 1, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Javier Sanchez-Martinez pleaded guilty to being found in the United States

without the Attorney General’s consent, having previously been deported, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court1 sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment

and 1 year supervised release. Mr. Sanchez-Martinez’s counsel has filed a brief--

arguing that the court erred by not sentencing Mr. Sanchez-Martinez to home detention
-2-

or community confinement, that the court erred by not advising Mr. Sanchez-Martinez

of his right to appeal, and that counsel was ineffective--and has moved to withdraw

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although we granted Mr.

Sanchez-Martinez permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Mr.

Sanchez-Martinez to a term of imprisonment rather than home detention or community

confinement. Although the court was not required to state its reasons for selecting the

sentence, because the Guidelines imprisonment range spanned less than 24 months, the

court explained that it had imposed the sentence for the purposes of punishment,

general deterrence, and incapacitation. See United States v. Sykes, 46 F.3d 869, 870-

71 (8th Cir. 1995) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), not necessary to state reasons;

affirming where court, nonetheless, stated that sentence was imposed for purposes of

punishment, general deterrence, and incapacitation).

We reject counsel’s argument that the district court erred by failing to advise Mr.

Sanchez-Martinez of his right to appeal, because it is clear from the transcript that the

court did advise him of his right to appeal. Finally, ineffective assistance of counsel

should be raised in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than in this direct

criminal appeal. See United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).

After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the

record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous

issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|West Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|West Virginia Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2,052  | 2,276  | 0     
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 2,551  | 3,043  | 3,808  | 2,160  | 1,909  | 1,791  | 1,490  | 1,527  | 1,233  | 1,218 
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 2,482  | 2,515  | 6,426  | 5,826  | 7,232  | 7,190  | 6,658  | 8,835  | 8,343  | 7,882 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 9,631  | 7,744  | 8,097  | 7,065  | 8,087  | 8,045  | 6,554  | 7,210  | 6,893  |       
|- = 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
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Colorado Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Colorado Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 896    | 923    | 976   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,018  | 1,074  | 1,108  | 1,032  | 1,176  | 1,528  | 2,099  | 2,923  | 3,349  | 4,727 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4,994  | 4,729  | 4,337  | 4,054  | 4,175  | 4,318  | 4,472  | 4,592  | 4,816  | 5,084 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6,232  | 6,529  | 6,906  | 7,293  | 7,823  | 8,094  | 8,484  | 9,074  | 9,366  | 9,656 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 9,753  | 9,786  | 9,683  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Dan W. GladneyDan W. GladneyChief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2005/s/ Scott P. YoungstromScott P. YoungstromChief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 90 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food And Drug Administration
[Docket No. 98F-0292]


Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Ciba 
Specialty Chemicals Corp., has filed a petition proposing that the food 
additive regulations be amended to provide for the expanded safe use of 
2-methyl-4,6-bis-[(octylthio)methyl]phenol as a stabilizer for rubber-
modified polystyrene intended for use in contact with food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Vir D. Anand, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C 
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food 
additive petition (FAP 8B4594) has been filed by Ciba Specialty 
Chemicals Corp., 540 White Plains Rd., Tarrytown, NY 10591-9005. The 
petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations to provide for 
the expanded safe use of 2-methyl-4,6-bis-[(octylthio)methyl]phenol as 
a stabilizer for rubber-modified polystyrene complying with 
Sec. 177.1640 Polystyrene and rubber-modified polystyrene (21 CFR 
177.1640) intended for use in contact with food.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(i) that this action is 
of the type that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

    Dated: April 24, 1998.
Laura M. Tarantino,
Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 98-12314 Filed 5-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
385P16

#### State v. Matthew Devon Fields

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-1086)

2. State’s Motion to Deem Response Timely Filed

1. Denied

2. Allowed
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Elizabeth Copeland v. Barry Copeland

Appellate case number: 01-14-00680-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-39055

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s Verified Unopposed Motion to Abate Appellant’s Briefing Deadlines 

Pending Filing of the Supplemental Clerk’s Record and Supplemental Reporter’s Records and 

Alternative Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief of Appellant is DISMISSED AS 

MOOT, as the record has been completed.

Appellant’s brief remains due December 5, 2014. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Rebeca Huddle

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 25, 2014