alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Utah Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Utah Natural Gas % of Total Vehicle Fuel Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 3.45   | 3.00   | 3.74   | 4.17   | 3.09   | 3.51   | 3.52  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3.52   | 3.26   | 3.23   | 3.22   | 3.22   | 0.82   | 0.78   | 0.85   | 0.80   | 0.55  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.71   | 0.97   | 0.96   | 0.75   | 0.73   | 0.83   | 0.73   | 0.73   | 0.69   | 0.61  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.56   | 0.53   | 0.50   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12178]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-259; License No. DPR-33]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Receipt of Petition for Director's 
Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated April 5, 1998, the 
Union of Concerned Scientists, (or Petitioner), has requested that the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1. Petitioner requests (1) that 
the operating license for Browns Ferry Unit 1 be revoked and (2) that 
the NRC require the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to submit either a 
decommissioning plan or a lay-up plan for Browns Ferry Unit 1. 
Petitioner further requests a hearing on this petition to present new 
information on Browns Ferry Unit 1 that would include a discussion of 
the licensing basis reconstitution that would be required to support 
restart, and certain financial aspects that might be a consideration 
for the TVA's decision for retaining the Browns Ferry Unit 1 operating 
license.
    As the basis for this request, the Petitioner asserts that 
revocation of the operating license and requiring relicensing if TVA 
later decides to restart Unit 1 is a better, safer process than is the 
current Inspection Manual Chapter 0350 restart process. Further, the 
petition asserts that requiring a decommissioning plan would provide 
assurance that the irradiated fuel is stored safely and that Units 2 
and 3 are sufficiently independent of Unit 1 for safe operation.
    The petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the 
Commission's regulations and has been referred to the Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by Section 2.206, 
appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable 
time.
    By letter dated April 29, 1998, the Director acknowledged receipt 
of the petition and denied Petitioner's request for a public hearing to 
present new information.
    A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, 
D.C. 20555.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-12178 Filed 5-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1381

AN ACT

To improve administrative services and support

for other purposes.provided to the National Forest Foundation, and
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1381

AN ACT

To improve administrative services and support provided to

the National Forest Foundation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1381 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Forest Foun3 dation Act Amendment Act of 1993’’.

4 SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

5 It is the purpose of this Act—

6 (1) to provide for start-up and matching funds

7 for project expenses to carry out the National Forest

8 Foundation Act; and

9 (2) to extend the funding authorization for

10 start-up expenses for 1 year.

11 SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 405 of the National For13 est Foundation Act (16 U.S.C. 583j–3) is amended—

14 (1) in subsection (a)—

15 (A) by inserting ‘‘, project,’’ after ‘‘admin16 istrative’’; and

17 (B) by striking ‘‘following the date of en18 actment of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘beginning

19 October 1, 1992’’; and

20 (2) in subsection (b)—

21 (A) by striking ‘‘from the date of enact22 ment of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘beginning Oc23 tober 1, 1992’’; and

24 (B) by inserting ‘‘and project’’ after

25 ‘‘administrative’’.
3

S 1381 ES

1 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 410(b) of

2 such Act (16 U.S.C. 583j–8(b)) is amended by striking

3 ‘‘following the date of enactment of this title,’’ and insert4 ing ‘‘beginning October 1, 1992,’’.

Passed the Senate September 15 (legislative day,

September 7), 1993.

Attest:

Secretary.
#### COM. v. COOPER, B.

405 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/22/2017

CP-51-CR-G438741-1984

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1492

To require the Secretary of the Army to carry out such activities as are

necessary to stabilize the bluffs along the Mississippi River in the vicinity

of Natchez, Mississippi, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1993

Mr. LOTT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Army to carry out such

activities as are necessary to stabilize the bluffs along

the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Historic Natchez

5 Bluffs Stabilization Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. STABILIZATION OF NATCHEZ BLUFFS.

7 In accordance with the recommendations of the re8 ports prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers entitled
2

•S 1492 IS

1 ‘‘Natchez Bluffs Study’’ and ‘‘Natchez Bluffs Study: Sup2 plement I’’, dated September 1985 and June 1990, re3 spectively, the Secretary of the Army shall carry out such

4 activities as are necessary to stabilize the bluffs along the

5 Mississippi River in the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi.

6 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated to the De8 partment of the Army such sums as are necessary to carry

9 out this Act.

Æ
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Total Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Total 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   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 706,230   | 644,017   | 688,740  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 702,847   | 634,794   | 675,583   | 689,992   | 696,175   | 691,591   | 659,754   | 752,401   | 749,884   | 809,707  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 879,365   | 965,742   | 1,037,979 | 1,121,696 | 1,244,371 | 1,255,621 | 1,301,000 | 1,350,245 | 1,460,456 | 1,618,008
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,718,480 | 1,801,483 | 1,862,795 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = 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
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ATLANTIC TOWING COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 12697.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 23, 1950.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing in the above styled and numbered cause be, and the same hereby is, denied.

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

On the submission of this case, it seemed quite clear to me that the action of the Board in finding unlawful the discharge of Hendrix and in requiring his reinstatement with reimbursement for his losses, found support in the evidence, and that its order must be enforced.

Now two motions for rehearing later, I am still more strongly confirmed in that view. For the Board’s brief in support of its petition for rehearing has so clearly pointed to and demonstrated both the existence of the fallacy which underlies the second opinion of this court and its misleading effect, as to leave me in no 'doubt that the first decision was right, the second decision wrong.

I, therefore, am constrained to dissent from the denial of the Board’s petition for rehearing
EX-35 (c)
PHH Mortgage

(logo) PHH

4001 Leadenhall Road
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054


March 7, 2007

WELLS FARGO BANK
Servicer Oversight Group, Yvonne Williams
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045


Re: Servicer Compliance Statement

Deal Name: Thornburg 2006-1

Dear Sir and/or Madame:

This statement of compliance is being provided in accordance with Item 1123 of
Regulation AB. The Undersigned hereby states that:

1. I am an authorized officer of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer");

2. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from 01/01/2006
   (the "Reporting Period") and its performance under the Agreement has been
   made under my supervision; and

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as described in
   section 3(a) hereto, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under
   the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

a. The Servicer did not maintain or provide one of the required monthly reports,
   specifically the S5L2 Fidelity report, as stated in the transaction
   agreement(s) for the Reporting period shown in section 2 of this statement.

By:/s/ Deborah A. Rocchi
Name:  Deborah A. Rocchi
Title: Assistant Vice President
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

June 29, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00067

- CR

Juan Gabriel GARZA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 06

- 03428

- ZCR Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on July 22, 2015

. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 21, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14466

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-80833-CV-DTKH

FIONA WHITE, 

NORDIA GORDON, 

individually and on behalf of 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs–Appellants, 

JEAN E. BARREAU, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

versus 

SENIOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., 

a Florida corporation formerly 

known as Straw Consulting, Inc., 

Defendant–Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 21, 2008)
2

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We find no error in the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs fall

within the “companionship services” exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act,

29 C.F.R. § 213(a)(15), because they conceded that—in the words of their

opposition to the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings—they “are

companion services employees employed by [the defendant].” We do not find

persuasive the plaintiffs’ attempt on appeal to qualify that and other similar

statements as conceding only that the plaintiffs performed some companionship

services, such that there might be an issue of fact as to whether they performed

sufficient companionship services to fall within the Department of Labor’s

definition of “companionship services.” See 29 C.F.R. § 552.6.

The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

 

Mechanical Technology Incorporated

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mechanical Technology Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven N. Fischer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), that, to my knowledge:
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medtronic, Inc. for the quarter ended October 24, 2008, the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Medtronic, Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and(2)

        The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Medtronic, Inc.




Date:    December 3, 2008

        /s/ William A. HawkinsWilliam A. Hawkins
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer






---
[Cite as State v. Dollar, 2024-Ohio-2208.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

DARNELL DOLLAR,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2024-02-020

D E C I S I O N

 6/10/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CR2023-03-0463

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Heinkel, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Darnell Dollar, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of 

proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and 

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review 
of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of 

both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response 

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error 

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel 

for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed 

for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

BYRNE, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Maryland Natural Gas % of Total Residential - Sales  (Percent)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Maryland Natural Gas % of Total Residential - Sales  (Percent)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 100.0 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 98.4   | 96.8   | 0.9    | 82.7  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 74.5   | 80.0   | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0  | 100.0 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 100.0  | 79.3   | 77.0   | 74.3   | 72.8   | 72.7   | 74.1   | 74.9   | 75.7   | 76.2  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 77.5   | 78.4   | 79.3   | 80.7   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 12-5824.

#### S. J. *v.*Mental Health Board of the Fourth Judicial District.

Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________
No

. 201 600177

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.



### KEIRON S. DARBY Private (E

- 1), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal fro m the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major M.D. Zimmerman, USMC

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, U SN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________
Decided 9 August 2016

______ ___________________
Before FISCHER, CAMPBELL, and LOCHNER

, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convenin g authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL
Clerk of Court
No. 12-6584.

#### Grandison *v.*Maryland.

Ct. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.