alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Arizona Natural Gas % of Total Industrial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Arizona Natural Gas % of Total Industrial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 55.5  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 56.7   | 51.9   | 70.4   | 75.0   | 69.7   | 75.3   | 80.3   | 74.9   | 66.6   | 63.8  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 73.2   | 53.6   | 58.8   | 60.0   | 44.9   | 56.4   | 62.1   | 68.7   | 70.4   | 70.9  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 74.5   | 75.8   | 78.6   | 83.4   | 87.2   | 84.2   | 84.1   | 86.2   | 85.6   | 81.8  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 79.5   | 78.7   | 80.0   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
1517 W EST F RONT S TREET • S UITE 354 • T YLER
, TX 75702 • T EL : 903-593-8471 • F AX : 903-593-2193 Serving Anderson,

Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van

Zandt and Wood Counties http://www.txcourts.gov/12thcoa.aspx C HIEF J USTICE J AMES T. W ORTHEN

J USTICES

B RIAN H OYLE
G REG N EELEY 

## T WELFTH 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS C LERK

K ATRINA M C C LENNY

C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY

K ERI L. H UNT

Monday, January 6, 2020

Mr. Michael J. West

Asst. District Attorney

4th Floor, Courthouse

100 North Broadway Tyler, TX 75702

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Mr. James W. Huggler Jr.

100 East Ferguson

Suite 805 Tyler, TX 75702

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 12-19-00145-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 007-0797-17

Style: Mark Allen Vanhouten

v. The State of Texas

You are hereby notified that in the above-described case, the following decision and order was made and entered by this Court:

"THIS DAY came on to be considered Appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief herein; and the same being inspected, it is ORDERED that said motion be, and hereby is,

OVERRULED

. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant’s brief be filed immediately. "

Very truly yours,

By:

_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Joshua H. Levine, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mentor Corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
(1)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and
(2)   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
Dated: August 7, 2007
/s/ JOSHUA H. LEVINE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jennifer Ann Larkins–Ruby v. Austin County, et al. 

Appellate case number: 01-21-00496-CV

Trial court case number: 2020V-0165

Trial court: 155th District Court of Austin County

On September 9, 2021, appellant, Jennifer Ann Larkins–Ruby, proceeding pro se, 

filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s August 17, 2021 final judgment. On 

September 17, 2021, appellant filed a “First Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Petition for Review.” In her motion, appellant requests a “minimum extension of 

time” of thirty days from the filing of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record “to file [her] 

[p]etition of [r]eview.”

While appellant’s motion refers to her “[p]etition of [r]eview,” because there has 

been no opinion and judgment from this Court, we construe her motion as a motion for 

extension of time to file her appellant’s brief. Compare TEX. R. APP. P. 38 (discussing 

requirements for appellate briefs filed in the courts of appeals), with TEX. R. APP. P. 53 

(allowing party to file “petition for review” to alter judgment of court of appeals).

To the extent appellant seeks an extension of her deadline to file an appellant’s brief 

with this Court, no extension is necessary. The appellate record, consisting of the clerk’s 

record and the reporter’s record, has not yet been filed, and according to our records, is due 

to be filed with this Court on or before October 18, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1. 

Because the appellate record is not complete, and is not yet due, the deadline for the filing 

of appellant’s brief cannot be determined. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (deadline for filing 

of appellant’s brief is thirty days after completion of appellate record).
Accordingly, appellant’s motion is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ April Farris______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____September 30, 2021____
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Maine Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others   (Percent)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Maine Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others   (Percent)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | --     | 0.0    | 38.4   | 29.8   | 35.4   | 40.1   | 51.3   | 53.8   | 55.0   | 49.0  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 55.0   | 54.2   | 57.9   | 57.4   | 50.9   | 46.8   | 42.2   | 40.7   | 37.7   | 36.7  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 37.2   | 36.8   | 35.7   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Cleveland SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 3, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinel-las County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0165

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JACOB ANDREW HOWARD,

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 November 16, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 8 2020

10/08/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0165
No. 12-436.

#### Wabno *v.*City of Derby, Connecticut.

App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-6497.

#### Harris v. Goodwin, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                       Exhibit 12


                                                   Nine Months Ended
                                                   September 30, 1997
                                                         (000s)
Earnings
 Income before interest expense                          $24,075
 Add:
  Income tax items                                         8,600
  Income tax on other income                               1,063
  Amortization of debt discount, premium expense             216
  AFUDC - borrowed funds                                       6
  Interest on rentals                                        676
   Total Earnings                                        $34,636

Fixed Charges
 Interest on long-term debt                              $ 7,212
 Other interest                                              621
 Amortization of debt discount, premium expense              216
 Interest on rentals                                         676
  Total Fixed Charges                                    $ 8,725

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                         3.97x
No. 12-6672.

#### Buford *v.*Horel et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 7, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: International Council on Clean Transportat ion Meeting with EPA and NHTSA Regarding Proposal for 2017-2025 Light-Duty (LD) Gr eenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards

FROM: Arvon L. Mitcham, Program Manager/Engineer

TO: EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents meetings held on April 18, 2012 between representatives of International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), EPA, and NH TSA to discuss ICCT’s comments on the LD GHG proposed rule. The meeting attendees include d the following:

ICCT : John German

EPA : Ed Nam, Arvon Mitcham, Ben Ellies, Tad Wysor, Byu ngho Lee

NHTSA : Jim Tamm, Rebecca Yoon, Greg Powell

The off-cycle credit topics discussed included air conditioning (A/C) efficiency credits, electrical load reduction estimates, assumptions for engine id le start-stop, data sufficiency for proper credit validation, presence of environmental A/C refrigera nt over the vehicle’s life, credit continuity with the model year (MY) 2012-2016 program, allowin g credit for vehicles without air conditioning, and proper consideration of 2-cycle b enefits when calculating credits for active transmission and engine warm-up. The ICCT used the ir submitted comments to guide the

discussion. Therefore, all materials for this meet ing are in the docket.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17111

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cr-00326-HES-JRK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES ROBERT COTTER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 16, 2017)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

James Cotter appeals the revocation of his supervised release, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3), for possessing child pornography. Cotter argues that there is 

Case: 16-17111 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

insufficient evidence that he violated the conditions of his supervised release and

that the district court clearly erred when it found that the recantation of his 

confession was not credible. We affirm.

We review a ruling that a defendant violated the terms of his supervised 

release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 

(11th Cir. 1994). Credibility determinations are the province of the fact finder who

personally observes the witnesses and is in a better position than a reviewing court 

to assess their credibility. United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th 

Cir. 2002). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Cotter’s 

supervised release. The district court was entitled to find by a preponderance of the 

evidence that, on October 14, 2014, while on supervised release, Cotter knowingly 

possessed child pornography and that he admitted that, on March 17, 2016, he 

accessed the internet using a cell phone and a tablet device to download child 

pornography. Circumstantial evidence supports the inference that Cotter had access 

to and used a secure digital memory card to obtain child pornography. And the 

district court did not clearly err when it discredited Cotter’s recantation of his 

earlier confession. The district court was entitled to find that Cotter’s admissions 

about viewing images of males but not females were credible. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-17111 Date Filed: 08/16/2017 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26447-26448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-ASW-03]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wagoner, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which establishes Class E airspace at Wagoner, OK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 63 FR 12639 is 
effective 0901 UTC, June 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region,

[[Page 26448]]

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, 76193-0520, telephone: 
817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 16, 1998 
(63 FR 12639). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on June 18, 1998. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this action confirms that this direct final rule will be 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 5, 1998.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 98-12732 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Donald W. La Rock, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 413]

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 22, 2002, which, inter alia, charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.

On January 2, 2002, the local unemployment insurance office issued two determinations which, inter alia, denied claimant unemployment insurance benefits and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $405. Apparently, at some later time, the same office sent a letter charging claimant with an additional recoverable overpayment of $3,645. On June 4, 2002, claimant requested administrative review of the January 2002 determinations. The Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant’s hearing request was untimely, continued all determinations by the local office, and listed the recoverable overpayment as $4,050—the sum of $405 plus $3,645. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s request for review was untimely as to the January 2002 determinations, and ruled on the merits that claimant owed the $3,645 overpayment charged to him after those determinations were made.

Claimant’s hearing request was barred by the applicable 30-day limitations period *(see*Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]). His contention that a temporary physical or mental incapacity prevented him from making a timely request is not subject to our review, *1023as it was not raised in the administrative forum *(see Matter of Roper [New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin.—Commissioner of Labor],*271 AD2d 737, 738 [2000]). In any event, he failed to offer any support for that contention. As claimant was precluded from challenging the determinations that he was disqualified from receiving benefits and made willful misstatements to obtain them, any benefit payments claimant received are recoverable *(see*Labor Law § 597 [4]; *Matter of Grant [Commissioner of Labor],*294 AD2d 736, 737 [2002]). Although the notice regarding the $3,645 recoverable overpayment was not included in the record, claimant acknowledged that he received benefits during a period when he was determined to be disqualified. Therefore, the Board properly determined that claimant is chargeable with recoverable overpayments of $4,050.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### COM. v. REDICK, T.

135 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/27/2017

CP-28-CR-0002372-2014

(Franklin)

Affirmed
#### State v. Beason

110,606

07/21/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
NOVEMBER 2, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN THE ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1997
<CASH>                                          57,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  542,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,618
<INVENTORY>                                    707,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,326,953
<PP&E>                                       1,224,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                 494,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,151,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          362,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,497,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,151,480
<SALES>                                      1,979,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,042,677
<CGS>                                        1,416,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,416,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 97,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,068
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60
<FN>
<F1>ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ADOPTION OF A NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARD RELATED TO THE
IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-603.

#### Morris *v.*National Football League Retirement Board.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7073.

#### Rudaj *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.