alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Indiana Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Refinery Gas  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Indiana Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Refinery 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 803    | 825    | 1,038  | 972    | 972    | 893    | 1,104  | 874    | 782    | 651   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 633    | 604    | 457    | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        | 0      |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
IN THE 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
No. 12-6816.

#### Suarez *v.*Felker, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 04a0126n.06 Filed: November 24, 2004 Case No. 02-2091 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NANCY LOUISE ABERNATHY, ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN JOAN YUKINS, Warden, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) Respondent-Appellee. ) )

__________________________________________ BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, BATCHELD ER, and COLE, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Nancy Louise Abernathy (“Abernathy”) appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for habeas review. Specifically, Abernathy alleges that the district court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), in finding that her trial attorney was not constitutionally ineffective for asserting simultaneous defenses of innocence and insanity to the charge that she murdered her daughter-inlaw. Additionally, Abernathy argues that because the district court denied Abernathy’s request to hold an evidentiary hearing, the record is insufficien t for this Court to determine whether the district court unreasonably applied Strickland

. A court may decide an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on a trial record “when the record is adequate to assess the merits of the defendant’s allegations.” United States v. Hill , 142 F. 3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 1998). We find that the district court did not err in ruling on the habeas2 petition without holding an evidentiary hearing b ecause the record was sufficiently developed, as reflected in the district court’s opinion. After caref ully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and counsels’ arguments, we are c onvinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district court’s opinion, whic h incorporates the Magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issu ance of a full written opini on by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we
AFFIRM.
Leading	Edge	Technologies

618	South	Main	St.

Winnebago,	Mn	56098

info@dronesforag.com

(507)	893-4545

February 17,	2015

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave	S.E.

Washington,	D.C.	20590

Re: Docket	FAA-2015-1053;	Third Amendment	to	Exemption	No.	11797

Request	by	Leading	Edge	Technologies	for	inclusion	of	additional	aircraft

Dear	Sir	or	Madam:

In	 this	 petition	 for amendment	 to	Exemption	No.	 11797,	 Leading	Edge	Technologies seeks	 to	

operate	two	additional	types	of	UASs	for	the	purposes	of	aerial	data	collection,	flight	operations	

training,	 and	 engineering	 development.	 These	 UASs	 are: (1)	 the	 DJI	 Inspire and	 (2)	 the	 DJI	

Phantom	3.	Both	aircraft	have	been	accepted	as	airworthy	under	numerous	previous	FAA	Section	

333	exemptions.

Leading	 Edge	 Technologies will	 comply	 with	 all	 of	 the	 conditions	 and	 limitations	 imposed	 in	

Exemption	11797, except	in	reference	to	condition/limitation	1,	which	will	include	the	vehicles	

above.	The	list	of	"operating	documents"	will	also	need	to	be	revised to	include	the	DJI	Inspire	

and	Phantom	3 User	Manuals.	These	manuals	are	submitted	with	this	Amendment	Petition for	

your	consideration. Other	 than	 these	 revisions,	 there	will	be	no	change	in	 the	conditions	and	

reasons	relative	to	public	safety	that	were	the	basis	for	the	initial	grant	of	exemption.

Because	the	requested	amendment	would	not	set	any	precedent	or	otherwise	raise	any	novel	

issue,	and	because	Leading	Edge	Technologies	seeks	 to	begin	 these	operations	without	delay,	

Leading	Edge	Technologies	respectfully	requests	the	FAA	to	determine	that	good	cause	exists	to	

dispense	with	publication	of	the	summary	of	this	petition	in	the	Federal	Register	and	grant	the	

requested	amendment	expeditiously	by	summary	means.	

Respectfully	submitted,

Orlando	Saez

CEO	– Leading	Edge	Technologies
Order filed August 26, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00042-CV

BENSON SCOTT WYLY, Appellant

V.

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S. RISK, INC. AND INTEGRITY INSURANCE 

SOLUTION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-CV-0583

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed May 8, 2015. Our review has determined that a relevant item 

has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not 

contain Notice of Non Suit – Partial filed by Benson Scott Wyly on October 18, 2014.

The Galveston County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on 

or before September 6, 2016, containing Notice of Non Suit – Partial filed by Benson Scott 

Wyly on October 18, 2014.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of 

the case file.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1390 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1390

        To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-dinitro aniline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 5, (legislative day, June 30), 1993

Mr. Thurmond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
        referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-dinitro aniline.

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

SECTION 1. 2,4-DINITRO ANILINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

    

       ``  9902.31.12   2,4-dinitro aniline (CAS No.             No change      No change      On or before     
                         97-02-9) (provided for in                                              12/31/96      ''
                         subheading 2921.42.50)......  Free                                                    .

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
EX-10.18



 Exhibit 10.18 
 Director Compensation Program 
 Under our director compensation program, we
pay our non-employee directors retainers in cash. Each non-employee director receives a cash retainer for service on the board of directors and for service on each committee on which the director is a member. These fees are payable quarterly in
arrears and are as follows: 
 Cash Fees 
  

									
	 	  	Member
Annual Fee	 	  	Chairman
Annual Fee	 
	 Board of Directors
	  	$	35,000	  	  	$	60,000	  
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	7,000	  	  	$	15,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	7,000	  	  	$	15,000	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	3,500	  	  	$	7,500	  
	 Scientific Committee
	  	$	7,000	  	  	$	15,000	  

 The Lead Independent Director of the Board of Directors receives an annual fee of $17,500 for service as Lead Independent
Director in addition to any other fees such Lead Independent Director is entitled to for service on the Board of Directors. 
 Equity Fees

 Our director compensation program also includes a stock-for-fees policy, under which directors have the right to elect to
receive common stock in lieu of cash fees. The number of shares to be issued to participating directors is determined on a quarterly basis by dividing the cash fees to be issued in common stock by the fair market value of our common stock, which is
the closing price of our common stock, on the first business day of the quarter following the quarter in which the fees were earned. 
 Under our director compensation program, upon their initial election to the board of directors, new non-employee directors receive an option grant for 30,000 shares and all non-employee directors receive
an annual option grant for 20,000 shares. The annual grants are made on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders. These options vest quarterly over three years from the date of grant, subject to continued service as a director, and are granted
under our 2008 Stock Incentive Plan. These options are granted with exercise prices equal to the fair market value of our common stock, which is the closing price of our common stock, on the date of grant and become immediately exercisable in full
if there is a change in control of our company.
# C_2019347EN.01000601.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9353 — Advent International Corporation/Evonik Methacrylates Business Division)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 347/06)

On 2 July 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9353. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9353. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UV ENI LE FE M ALE, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 30052 D. C. No . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 1 1 3 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t11, 2011 ** B efo re: T H O M A S , S IL V E R M A N , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es Ju v e n ile F e m a le ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r d e rr e q u ir in g h e rto r e m a in i n d et ent i on un t i l age 19. T he se nt ence w as i m po se d aft erthe di stri ctcourt a dj udge d he rt o be gui l tyof a n a c tof j uve ni l e de l i nque nc y . P ur s uantt o A nder s v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 1967) , Juve ni l e F e m a l e ’ s c ouns e l ha s f i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng 

# FI LED AU G 12 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30052 2 the r e a r e no gr ounds f

orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of reco rd . W e h av e p ro v i d edth e ap p el l an tw i th th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se supp l em ent albri ef

. N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef

has bee n f i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1097 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1097

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand and make permanent 
            the standard deduction for real property taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2011

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand and make permanent 
            the standard deduction for real property taxes.

    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 ``Complete and Permanent Property Tax 
Deduction Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES EXPANDED AND MADE 
              PERMANENT.

    (a) Standard Deduction for Real Property Taxes Made Permanent.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 63(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``in the case of any taxable year beginning 
in 2008 or 2009,''.
    (b) Repeal of Dollar Limitation and Exclusion of Foreign Taxes.--
Paragraph (7) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(7) Real property tax deduction.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1), the real property tax deduction is the amount 
        allowable as a deduction under section 164(a)(1) (determined 
        without regard to any taxes taken into account under section 
        62(a)).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
145P17

#### In the Matter of A.P.

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA16-1010)

2. Petitioner’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

1. Allowed 05/09/2017

2.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,418-01

EX PARTE CORNELIA DUNCAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1383723-A IN THE 180TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to 180 days’ imprisonment. She did not appeal her conviction.

In a single ground, Applicant contends that she is actually innocent. See Ex parte Elizondo,

947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings of

fact and concluded that Applicant is actually innocent. We disagree that Applicant has established

that she is actually innocent. Instead, we hold that her guilty plea was involuntary. See Ex parte
2

Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is granted. The judgment in cause number

1383723 in the 180th District Court of Harris County is set aside, and if in custody, Applicant is

remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County to answer the charges as set out in the

information. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate

of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–State Jail

Felony Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: March 18, 2015

Do not publish
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, 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 periodcovered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-1 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  materialfact 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 theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports 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 thisreport, 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:  Greenpoint MortgageCompany.

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |