alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Ohio Natural Gas Percentage Total Industrial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Ohio Natural Gas Percentage Total Industrial 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 3.78   | 3.81   | 3.92   | 3.91   | 3.94   | 3.98   | 4.03  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.16   | 4.02   | 4.07   | 4.06   | 4.17   | 4.46   | 4.40   | 4.42   | 4.24   | 3.77  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3.94   | 3.83   | 3.66   | 3.69   | 3.97   | 3.67   | 3.56   | 3.50   | 3.67   | 3.54  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.43   | 3.70   | 3.66   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard Denoyer, Senior Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



March 16, 2011

/s/ BERNARD DENOYER Bernard Denoyer Senior Vice President, Finance


---



QuickLinks
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Hawaii Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Hawaii Natural Gas Number of Commercial 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2,896  | 2,852  | 2,842 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2,837  | 2,786  | 2,793  | 3,222  | 2,805  | 2,825  | 2,823  | 2,783  | 2,761  | 2,763 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,768  | 2,777  | 2,781  | 2,804  | 2,578  | 2,572  | 2,548  | 2,547  | 2,540  | 2,535 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,551  | 2,560  | 2,545  | 2,627  | 2,789  | 2,815  | 2,867  | 2,919  | 2,941  | 2,977 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,957  | 2,936  | 2,933  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1025 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in the 

reserve components of certain persons by honoring them with status 

as veterans under law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. LATHAM, and Mr. RUNYAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize the 

service in the reserve components of certain persons by 

honoring them with status as veterans under law. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF STATUS UNDER LAW BY HON4 ORING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE 

5 COMPONENTS AS VETERANS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 107 the 

8 following new section: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1025 IH

1 ‘‘§ 107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who 

2 performed service in the reserve compo3 nents 

4 ‘‘Any person who is entitled under chapter 1223 of 

5 title 10 to retired pay for nonregular service or, but for 

6 age, would be entitled under such chapter to retired pay 

7 for nonregular service shall be honored as a veteran but 

8 shall not be entitled to any benefit by reason of this sec9 tion.’’. 

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

11 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

12 after the item relating to section 107 the following new 

13 item: 

‘‘107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service in the reserve components.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10016 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Martin Perez**

**- Barrios,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 152

- 1

Before **Wiener, Dennis,**  and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Martin Perez

- Barrios pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 37 months in prison

. He
asserts that he was not informed that the statutory enhancement provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) was an essential element of the offense to which he was

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10016 Document: 00516390336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2022No. 22

- 10016

2 pleading guilty. Perez

- Barrios argues that his guilty plea thus was unknowing and involuntary . He also alleges that the statutory enhancement provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional.
Perez

- Barrios concedes that his arguments concerning § 1326(b) are foreclosed and indicates that he wishes to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. The parties are correct that the issue s raised on appeal are foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Pineda

Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 ( 5th Cir. 2007). S ummary affirmance thus is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. Accordingly , the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extensio n of time to file a brief is **DENIED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-10016 Document: 00516390336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2022
<PAGE>
 
                           EXHIBIT 24

                       POWER OF ATTORNEY



    I, the undersigned, hereby constitute and appoint
JOSEPHINE S. TRUBEK as my true and lawful agent and
attorney-in-fact to act with full power and authority and in my
name, place and stead as I, myself, could act for the sole
purpose of executing the Form 10-K of Frontier Corporation for
the year ended December 31, 1995, pursuant to Instruction
D(2)(a) of the Form 10-K and in accordance with Regulation S-K
Item 601(b)(24) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and with full and unqualified
authority to delegate such power to any person or persons as my
attorney-in-fact shall select.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED AND
DELIVERED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS OF MARCH 18, 1996.


                            /s/ Patricia C. Barron
                            ----------------------------
                                Patricia C. Barron

                            /s/ Ronald L. Bittner
                            ----------------------------
                                Ronald L. Bittner

                            /s/ Raul E. Cesan
                            ----------------------------
                                Raul E. Cesan
                           
                           /s/  Brenda E. Edgerton
                            ----------------------------
                                Brenda E. Edgerton

                           
                            ----------------------------
                                Jairo A. Estrada

                            /s/ Daniel E. Gill
                            ----------------------------
                                Daniel E. Gill


                            /s/ Michael E. Faherty
                            ----------------------------
                                Michael E. Faherty

                            /s/ Alan C. Hasselwander
                            ----------------------------
                                Alan C. Hasselwander

                            /s/ Robert J. Holland, Jr.
                            ----------------------------
                                Robert J. Holland, Jr.
<PAGE>
 
                            /s/ Douglas H. McCorkindale
                            ----------------------------
                                Douglas H. McCorkindale

                           
                            ----------------------------
                                Marvin C. Moses
                                                                    
                             /s/ Leo J. Thomas             
                            ----------------------------
                                 Leo J. Thomas

                            /s/  Richard J. Uhl
                            ----------------------------
                                 Richard J. Uhl
Order entered November 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01589-CV

IN RE MICHAEL JAMES VELA, Relator

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-18332-S

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDUARDO NEMESIO CASTILLOTRIGOSO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70838

Agency No. A072-142-425

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2014** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Eduardo Nemesio Castillo-Trigoso, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation

proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

DEC 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo-Trigoso’s moiton

to reopen on the ground that he failed to establish improper notice, where his

counsel of record was properly served by certified mail with written notice of the

February 15, 1996 hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A) (1994) (written notice

shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record);

Garcia, 222 F.3d at 1209 (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to alien).

Because Castillo-Trigoso did not challenge before the BIA the IJ’s

dispositive determination that he failed to establish the due diligence necessary for

equitable tolling of the motions deadline, any such challenge is not exhausted and

we do not have jurisdiction to consider it. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930-

31 (9th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 08-70838
Order entered April 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00203-CR

JOAN NOIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-58111-L

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1178]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 02/72-0578]


Hudson Venture Partners, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of a Small 
Business Investment Company License

    On June 4, 1997, an application was filed by Hudson Venture 
Partners, L.P., at 660 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, New York 
10022, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to Section 
107.300 of the Regulations governing small business investment 
companies (13 CFR 107.300 (1996)) for a license to operate as a small 
business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 02/72-0578 on December 31, 1997, to Hudson Venture 
Partners, L.P. to operate as a small business investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: January 9, 1998.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-1178 Filed 1-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
OF TJ3XAS 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711 

November 2, 1973 

The Honorable Dan R. Beck 

County Attorney 

Fayette County Courthouse 

La Grange, Texas 78945 

Dear Mr. Beck: 

Your request for an opinion asks: 

Opinion No. H- 142 

Re: Whether, in developing 

land along the Colorado 

River, it is necessary to 

provide for public access 

at any stated interval. 

Is it necessary to grant public access to 

the Colorado River every two miles? 

Article 6703, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, provides in part: 

“The commissioners court shall order 

the laying out and opening of public roads when 

necessary ~ . . ” 

The question of whether any particular road is neces,sary.in the public 

interest is for the Commissioners Court to determine. Tarrant County 

v. Shannon, et ux, 129 Tex. 264, 104 S. W. 2d 4 (Tex. 1937). The only 

restriction is that the determination be reasonable. 

The Commissioners Court of Fayette County is not legally required 

to furnish access roads to the Colorado River every two miles unless it 

is determined to be factually necessary. 

SUMMARY 

A Commissioners Court may:grant.public access to a 

river every two ,miles. but there is no legal requirement 

that it,do so unless it finds the road to be “necessary”. 

Attorney General of Texas 
The Honorable Dan R. Beck, page 2 (H-142) 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 676
No. 12-403.

#### Maple *v.*Harlow, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari 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 of PositiveID Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott R. Silverman, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, and I, William J. Caragol, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Scott R. SilvermanScott R. SilvermanChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the BoardDate: March 25, 2011/s/ William J. CaragolWilliam J. CaragolPresident and Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 25, 2011   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PositiveID Corporation and will be retained by PositiveID Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 21, 2023

NO. 03-22-00255-CR

Damon Boyd, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND JONES

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
131P16-5

#### State v. Somchai Noonsab

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Default in the Matters of Denied Writ of Habeas Corpus

Denied 03/10/2017