alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History:                                                    
|                                                                 
|Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|Nebraska Natural Gas 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 34     | 35     | 30     | 19     | 31     | 21     | 13    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 14     | 9      | 0      | 3      | 2      | 3      | 7      | 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: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Harris County, Texas v. Park at Westcreek, LP

Appellate case number: 01-18-00343-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-32867

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

The reporter’s record was originally due on May 10, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. On May 21, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 10 

days of the date of the order. When the court reporter failed to file the record as ordered, 

this court issued a second order on May 29, 2018 ordering the court reporter to file the 

record within 10 days, and instructed the court reporter that if the record was not filed, 

the court would order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for 

failure to file the record. The record has not been filed with the court. The trial and 

appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely 

filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely 

as ordered, we issue the following order.

The judge of the 80th District Court to conduct a hearing at which the court 

reporter, appellant’s counsel, and appellee’s counsel shall participate (a) to determine the 

reason for failure to file the record; (b) to establish a date certain when the reporter’s 

record will be filed, and (c) to make whatever additional findings and orders to ensure 

that the appellate record is timely filed. The trial court shall forward to this court a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing its relevant findings and orders. The hearing 

record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court within 

10 days of the date of this order. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s 

findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate 

the appeal on its own motion. If the court reporter files the record prior to the date set for 

the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated and the trial court need not hold a hearing.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 19, 2018
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

167) ll-E-18 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 167 of 276 
P.2 

i E33 

i' 

•yn 

CONVERSATION RECC 

II-E-18 

It tin 

TYPE 

Q VISIT 

Location of Visit/Conference: 

• CONFERENCE ^TELEPHONE 

• INCOMING 

• OUTGOING 

NAME OF PERSONCS) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT 

WITH YOU 

ORGANIZATION (Office, dept.. bureau, j TELEPHONE NO* 

etc.) 

NlWJ^t|-L/i'7 

SUBJECT 

Vy/e po p -Ur \ W a J j | i ^i*» v 

ROUTING 

NAME/SYMBOL 

'P^f •X. 

\C 4^,-tt ^ -

K *»•* -

? A\^-

v a-» jVl ti rf Wl 

INT 

fy*^ 

SUMMARY 

Y /K^. j~vuA" rj^ytuy? o A 

VX-v\ \*Ka \yi/o 

c? A U //6/P / a J Q^ryX-jJi y ^(o^yl^Jl , 1~K -j ° v ^ Wo Jf^' j i~C 

\f ^ J _> / -fi>K t U Ai_(L 

^ 

Juw luU X Q T j4,* > JUfl-gy 3 - r-*j^k*i JU L •/» 

7 ^ 

^m Sk 

% 

Y*- v' ' 

III.. . 

ArT..?*** V'' 

M ^ ^ 

\ %A*AJ-^*' 

ACTION REQUIRED 

ACTION TAKEN t 

SIGNATURE TITLE 

w*-

50271-101 U.S.G.PO 1985 -461-275/20202 CONVERSATION RECORD OPTfOMA-. FORM 271 (12-76) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
## COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

January 20, 2021

No. 10

- 20

- 00 3 0 8

- C V

IN RE ALFRED LEE STONE

Original Proceeding

From the 12 th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 20

- 625C



## JUDGMENT

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Alfred Lee Stone has been considered by the

Court. The Court has determined the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be and hereby is

denied.

A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to th e

trial court.

Nita Whitener, Clerk

By:

_____________________________ Lanette Sullins, Deputy Clerk
Sanitized Consolidated Chemical Compound 2: Substrate

Infused Carbon Nanostructure Complex
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10548

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eduardo Garcia Briseno, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CR-37-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Eduardo Garcia Briseno appeals the sentence for his conviction under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) for illegal reentry into the United States after 

removal. He contends that the enhancement of his sentence under § 1326(b) 

is unconstitutional because it was based on the fact of a prior conviction that 

was not alleged in the indictment and neither found by a jury nor admitted by 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 20, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10548 Document: 00516974097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023
No. 23-10548

2

him.

Garcia Briseno correctly concedes that this argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he raises the

issue merely to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Pervis, 

937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019). The government therefore has moved 

without opposition for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

Because summary affirmance is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension is 

DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-10548 Document: 00516974097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2023
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Price of Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas LNG Imports from Nigeria  (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Price of Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas LNG Imports from Nigeria  (Nominal Dollars per Thousand 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | --     | 11.11  | --     | 8.29   | --     | --    
|2010'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
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Wisconsin Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Wisconsin Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 7,912  | 8,241 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 8,000  | 8,335  | 8,105  | 8,712  | 8,727  | 7,200  | 4,519  |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5,191  | 5,123  | 5,167  | 5,145  | 5,374  | 5,519  | 5,420  | 5,468  | 5,581  | 5,691 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,713  | 5,591  | 5,569  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00047-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.A.D., A CHILD 

 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 69,259-C, Honorable Jack M. Graham, Presiding 

 

March 20, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant Yessenia Luna has filed a motion seeking voluntary dismissal of this 

appeal. The court finds the motion complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent any party 

from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

As no decision of the court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The 

appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will 

issue forthwith. The parties have not presented an agreement for assessment of costs. 

Therefore, costs are assessed against appellant. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

Per Curiam
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 52,198 | 52,198
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 52,189 | 54,889 | 54,898 | 54,898 | 54,898 | 54,942 | 54,942 | 54,942 | 54,942 | 54,942
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 54,942 | 54,942 | 54,942 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
158P06-12

#### State v. Derrick D. Boger

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

Denied 05/12/2017
-90 -85 -80 -75 -70

35 40 45



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000

18 12 06 00 08/06 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 06 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
SCPW-22-0000311

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

LINDA MOLINA, Petitioner/Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant,

vs.

CAROL GINOZA, President of Zen Properties, Incorporated,

Appointed Property Manager of The Estate of Sheila Spencer

Provost, a.k.a. Sheila Spencer, a.k.a. Shayla Spencer Provost,

Deceased, Respondent/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE. NO. 1DRC-21-0006827; APPEAL NO. CAAP-22-0000166)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Linda Molina’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on May 1, 2022, the

documents attached and submitted in support, and the record,

petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to

relief because petitioner has failed to show a flagrant and

manifest abuse of discretion or a lack of alternative means to

seek relief. An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See

Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

(explaining that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-22-0000311

19-MAY-2022

09:39 AM

Dkt. 59 ODDP
that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear

and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means

to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge who has exceeded

the judge’s jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest

abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly

before the court under circumstances in which the judge has a

legal duty to act). Accordingly,

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 19, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12483]

[[Page 26174]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-208-000]

Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1998, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be 
effective June 1, 1998:

First Revised Sheet No. 267
Second Revised Sheet No. 268
Original Sheet Nos. 271A, 271B, 271C, and 271D
First Revised Sheet No. 272

    Williams states that the purpose of this filing is to modify 
Article 14 of its FERC Gas Tariff to include costs incurred in the 
assignment of any remaining gas purchase contracts through a reverse 
auction process as a cost eligible for recovery as GSR costs and to 
establish procedures to be used in conducting such reverse action.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12483 Filed 5-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
# Fourt h Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 8, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00557

- CV

IN RE Stephanie RIOS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On September 4, 2015

, relator Stephanie Rios filed a petition for writ of mandamus and

an emergency motion to abate further proceedings in the trial court pending a ruling on the

man damus petition. The court has considered the motion and petition for writ of mandamus and

is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ

of mandamus and the emergency motion to abate further proceedi ngs in the trial court are

DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on September 8, 2015

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. PR

- 14

- 016, styled In the Estate of Artemio Rios, Deceased , pending in the

County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas, the Honorable Romero Molina presiding.