alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|South Dakota Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|South Dakota Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.68   | 0.31   | 0.16   | 0.14   | 0.14   | 0.10   | 0.10  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.10   | 0.09   | 0.09   | 0.09   | 0.09   | --     | 0.00   | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.00   | --     | --     | --     | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
IIA 

Calendar No. 294 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 98 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2012 

Received, read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to Public Law 112– 

25, section 301(a)(2) 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of the President’s exercise of 

authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under 

section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on January 12, 2012. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves of the President’s exercise of 

4 authority to increase the debt limit, as exercised pursuant 

5 to the certification under section 3101A(a) of title 31, 

6 United States Code. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 18, 

2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 294 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 98 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of the President’s exerUnited States Code, on January 12, 2012. submitted under section 3101A of title 31, cise of authority to increase the debt limit, as 

JANUARY 23, 2012 

Received, read twice and placed on the calendar, 

pursuant to Public Law 112–25, section 301(a)(2) 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Juan GONZALEZ-DIAZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0317

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 18, 2017

L.T. NO.: 03-12229

Denied.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December
31, 2008 of Uranium 308 Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual
Report”), I, Dennis Tan, President, CEO and a director of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.





Dated:
      April 14, 2009
              /s/ Dennis TanDennis
      Tan, President, CEO and Director
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
460P16

#### In the Matter of D.P. and B.P.

Respondent-Mother’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA16-529) Denied
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donnell Hofler, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 774]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered October 22, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and bail jumping in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the minutes of his plea allocution cannot be located, defendant is not entitled to either reversal or a reconstruction hearing. Defendant has not rebutted the presumption of regularity attaching to judicial proceedings and has not articulated any appealable issue associated with his plea *(see People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283, 286 [1977]; *People v Fabelo,*211 AD2d 517 [1995], *lv denied 85*NY2d 908 [1995]; *People v Council,*162 AD2d 365 [1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 984 [1990]). The presumption of regularity is particularly significant in guilty plea cases *(People v Bell,*36 AD2d 406 [1971], *affd*29 NY2d 882 [1972]), because “plea situations are ordinarily marked by the absence of controverted issues,” and “in the plea situation the defendant tacitly indicates that no further judicial inquiry is required” *(People v Lynn,*28 NY2d 196, 202 [1971]). Moreover, in this case, the sentencing minutes reveal that defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, and his failure to make such an application would seriously undermine his ability to challenge his plea on appeal *(see People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725 [1995]; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. TEXAS ROADHOUSE MANAGEMENT CORP., Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC and Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Plaintiffs Below, Appellees.

No. 166, 2017

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: November 15, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, C.A. No. N15C-08-215-CLS

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MERCURY
GENERAL CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,074,764
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     160,462
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,282,163
<CASH>                                           5,771
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          52,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,556,589
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                377,759
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            290,924
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,017
<OTHER-SE>                                     655,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,556,589
<PREMIUMS>                                     490,698
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             40,779
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 833
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,411
<BENEFITS>                                     323,200
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    105,280
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            15,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,837
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             66,711
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,711
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
August 1 6

Mr. Marc Acting Ch Federal A 800 Inde p Washingt

Dear Mr.

On July 1 1 the mini m and New a withdraw

Please gi v
Respectf u

Michele B Director, A

cc: R R 6 , 2011

Warren ief Counsel, A viation Admi n p endence Av e on, DC 2059

Warren,

1 , 2011, Cont

m um slot usa g
a rk Liberty In t

the EWR po r

v e me a call a t

u lly submitte d

B oyce A irport Acce s

ebecca Mac P ob Hawks A GC

‐ 1

n istration

e nue, SW 1

inental Airlin g e requireme t ernational A

r tion of the r e

t (872) 825

‐ 8

d
,

s s

P herson es respectful nts in effect a irport (“EWR ”

e quest.

675 if you ha ly submitted

a t Ronald Re a

” ). After furt

ve any quest a combined r
a gan Washin g her review, C

ions or conc e r equest for a g ton Nationa C ontinental w

e rns. limited waiv e l Airport (“D C

w ould like to e r of C A”)
**This item contains materials that cannot**  **be**

**uploaded to the federal docket. A CD containing files submitted to EPA**  **by Hogback Exploration with the extension .l**  **ic is available by contacting** 

**docket staff via email at**  **Docket_ORD@epamail.epa.gov**
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this annual report for the year ended December 31, 2006 on Form 10-K (the
Annual Report), of Hughes Communications, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Pradman P. Kaul and Grant A. Barber, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (i) | the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2007 |  |        |  | /s/ PRADMAN P. KAUL                                                               
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Pradman P. Kaul                                                                   
|                     |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                             
|                     |  |       
|                     |  |        |  | /s/ GRANT A. BARBER                                                               
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Grant A. Barber                                                                   
|                     |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
OCT 27 2015 cmn 

## Pre 7R m^f^Tiifm^^SxM^kxmcwer 3BS2
e? :&S^S ra I833£ 

### _^v|kma=$ix^: ficr U nQtzm 55^ ~2£3 S3D s/VgW- 

## !§jbLto^£C^i^Qixfe £1— 

### ffifaj _O^U) 

### s32&i HSU3mi2£~ Or 2ft; ^LStUB^ $QQ

## •<?2TM p^w v^ij&mswoE o£P? otto' #^' TO

cubo

### iUSM

__ Mp

### ^§D£bB^LiLLBSr>QhO$l 

### ttumte^ =£2 

### ^S22^ •Wtt& 

## c/uo^ h if: Oa\m^;j/nkFfftM 9^ 'B t c^ WW

## W^E^^^siaa^m.-BL^cuq^ •pgzssiir mri^: 

## ^0^^^L-^"sS^^7

mm^/m^mmN^BEjc^/^^) o¥< rrrxr we: LtC2>oU^icilKfiA£C 

## '^l^^^m^Bt&^M^MmJ^zm^ 'L£fL£Zs£=Il ££GQ

-«* 1" f* ~"v • r !• - <~~ X—.:—a-^^ :ts: y



## ytesa^K, 

# ^ud^ry^aw^^M&77^ ^^JgSlC^ cK^J^m 

### £^F3 C±toBr*S7D 

### /' CcLIA'CjfED" Dffl T$m 

### juSsao^Qp; m kcrltiJ£»-/?^cn^/;c 

### gA C2 iBi 

## ¥l

Mmixmrn 'ffift g-$v^Qf>vcf rra 

### 72%#y2tMnj*£gJjy^^ :^^ez



### - oS'I

## ^^S.kmxfe7iM^ifiB r 5/*£ ^OET-
._ .„ ^ _.&COU 

### tmsyMi iM^r 

## feffifc^te^^ij [EffiJZfcCgi fas frfifOcoV- btcnOc^ Tfrtm^ H#>° a®*7 £hk@&4. 

### umm£&3& -7ftUni<ZTMEFT~ ChP>inv\ Xn mc\err QuH-Fl/x tey y:;
_{y^~ ,yf—€r~~-j ^~t^~ _) xus££2ai£££U£ ^qfi&L,:j

/v m £2^ 

### ^j^iMjSaumijM (^{Mj^J^JJ^SLi ii^L^ 0fA£cx^£: 

### MM>Mm^

n •«^-» !l—!—. \ « . y ^e^ _v_ Ooi^ 

## ^f_B^D_^ hfOE^ 

### ych-r TfflftS ffi/JUE^? psP &{,OzA££= QivBrimiA v '/e^e^r
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0471 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CARESSA JILL HARDY, aka GLENN LEE DIBLEY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 1 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 25 2021

08/25/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0471
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN L. BLANCHARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,

District Judge. (CA-04-64; CR-01-47)

Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 19, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John L. Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John L. Blanchard seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blanchard has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History:                                                       
|                                                                    
|New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals  (Million 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                                                                                                                            | 8      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 2,599  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 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: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Charles W. VAN BUREN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13081.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 5, 1950.

No appearance entered for appellant.

Henry H. Durrence, Asst. U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for appellee.

Before HOLMES, WALLER and BOR-AH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### COM. v. LOPEZ, L.

1078 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/11/2017

CP-25-CR-0002525-2015

(Erie)

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALANDIOUS T. FELDMAN, a/k/a Tony Rony,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-00-

242-AMD; CA-02-1686-AMD)

Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 11, 2004

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alandious T. Feldman, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett,

Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alandious T. Feldman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Feldman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Feldman’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Feldman’s

motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the district court’s

ruling on his motion for reconsideration in light of the district

court’s recent denial of reconsideration. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Gary STEHLEY, Petitioner

No. 240 WAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

December 4, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.