alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Trustees

MESABI TRUST

New York, New York

 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed balance sheet of MESABITRUST as of October 31, 2007, and the related condensed statements of incomefor the three and nine-month periods ended October 31, 2007 and 2006 and thecondensed statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended October 31,2007 and 2006.  These financialstatements are the responsibility of the Trust’s Trustees.

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial informationconsists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries ofpersons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than anaudit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as awhole.  Accordingly, we do not expresssuch an opinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modificationsthat should be made to the accompanying interim financial statements, referredto above, for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America.

 

We have previously audited,in accordance with auditing standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), the balance sheet of MESABI TRUST as of January 31, 2007, and the related statements ofincome, unallocated reserve and trust corpus and cash flows for the year thenended (not presented herein); and in our report dated April 6, 2007, weexpressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth inthe accompanying condensed balance sheet as of January 31, 2007, is fairlystated, in all material respects, in relation to the balance sheet from whichit has been derived.

 

 

 

/s/ GORDON, HUGHES & BANKS, LLP

 

Greenwood Village, Colorado

December 5, 2007

 

----
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Tennessee Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Tennessee Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 343    | 340    | 281    | 252    | 210    | 199    | 163    | 10    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 11     | 11     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Corpus Christi, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Corpus Christi, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 31,750 | 74,634 | 23,723 | 32,364 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### State v. Loya

106,454

04/08/13

Denied. ,

Unpublished
#### IN the INTEREST OF: M.B.H., a Minor

2558 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/04/2017

CP-51-AP-0000574-2016 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Ohio Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Ohio Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price  (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0.22   | 0.23   | 0.23  
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 0.23   | 0.27   | 0.28   | 0.30   | 0.32   | 0.43   | 0.53   | 0.87   | 1.01   | 1.37  
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 1.92   | 2.33   | 3.04   | 3.42   | 3.28   | 3.28   | 2.79   | 2.64   | 2.43   | 2.54  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2.61   | 2.66   | 2.83   | 2.53   | 2.50   | 2.03   | 2.88   | 2.80   | 3.20   | 2.63  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3.41   | 5.18   | NA     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, June 5, 1998, in Building 31, Room 
2A52.
    This meeting will be open to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon 
on June 5 for the review of the Intramural Research Program and 
scientific presentations. Attendance by the public will be limited to 
space available.
    In accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5, U.S.C. and section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the meeting 
will be closed to the public on June 5 from 1:00 p.m. to adjournment 
for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual programs and 
projects conducted by the National Institutes of Health, including 
consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, the 
competence of individual investigators, and similar items, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.
    Ms. Catherine O'Connor, Senior Biomedical Research Program 
Assistant, NICHD, Building 31, Room 2A50, National Institutes of 
Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-2425, 301-496-2133, will provide a 
summary of the meeting, a roster of Board members, and substantive 
program information upon request. Individuals who plan to attend the 
open session and need special assistance, such as sign language 
interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Ms. 
O'Connor in advance of the meeting.

    Dated: April 29, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-12105 Filed 5-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 12-7609.

#### Diehl-Armstrong *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1518 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1518

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Diquat Dibromide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 5 (legislative day, September 27), 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Diquat Dibromide.

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

SECTION 1. DIQUAT DIBROMIDE.

    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  o-Diquat dibromide 1,1'-Ethylene-2,2'-dipyridylium                          No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        dibromide (CAS No. 85-00-7) (provided for in subheading                                                       31/96           ''
                        2933.90.15).............................................  Free                                                                . 

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies 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>
```
Opinion filed November 10, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-22-00218-CR

____________

EDDIE DALE UNDERWOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 6880-D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Eddie Dale Underwood, Appellant, has filed a pro se notice of appeal in which 

he states that he is appealing “from the trial court’s order that ‘denied’ [Appellant’s] 

‘Motion for New Trial’ and the request for ‘Hearing.’”1 We dismiss this appeal. 

Shortly after this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court wrote Appellant

and informed him that it did not appear that his notice of appeal related to an 

1

We note that Appellant’s “motion for new trial” relates to the trial court’s April 2022 order denying 

Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

April 2022 order, and this court dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Ex parte Underwood, 

No. 11-22-00137-CR, 2022 WL 2349700 (Tex. App.—Eastland June 30, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).
2

appealable order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to 

continue the appeal. Appellant has filed a response in which he addresses the effect 

of a nunc pro tunc judgment, which purportedly corrected a “judicial” error, and the

“status” of the original judgment of conviction. Appellant also suggests that we

abate this appeal and direct the trial court to determine the effect of its nunc pro tunc 

judgment. None of the contentions addressed by Appellant in his response

constitutes a ground upon which this appeal may continue. 

An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal 

defendant from a final judgment of conviction or as otherwise authorized by law. 

Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A direct appeal 

from the denial of a motion for new trial—separate from the appeal of the underlying 

conviction—is not permitted. Torres v. State, No. 12-22-00004-CR, 2022 WL 

399140, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 9, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication) (“An order denying a motion for new trial is not a separately 

appealable order.”); Billiot v. State, No. 02-11-00298-CR, 2011 WL 4469232, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 30, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). Because the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal—the trial 

court’s order denying Appellant’s “motion for new trial”—is not an appealable 

order, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Torres, 2022 WL 

399140, at *1; Billiot, 2011 WL 4469232, at *1. 

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

November 10, 2022

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
No. 12-584.

#### Kozina *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Portal, ND Compressed Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Portal, ND Compressed Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 2      |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1457 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1457

To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to increase 
authorization for appropriation to compensate Aleut villages for church 
       property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 14 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

 Mr. Stevens (for himself and Mr. Murkowski) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

            November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

                          Committee discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to increase 
authorization for appropriation to compensate Aleut villages for church 
       property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Subsection (d) of section 205 of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands 
Restitution Act (Public Law 100-383) is amended by striking 
``$1,400,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$4,700,000''.

                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 8 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN D. BEEM,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 01-3048 v. (D.C. No. 01-CV-3012-GTV) GLENN LEE, Lieutenant, Hutchinson Correctional Facility East; WILLIAM DAVIS, Dorm II, Master Sergeant, Hutchinson Correctional Facility, (D. Kansas)

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Appellant Steven D. Beem appeals the United States District Court for the District of Kansas’ dismissal of his § 1983 complai nt. Appellant alleges that-2-

Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to re-inflate the tire of his wheelchair. Appellant alleges that as a res ult of this refusal he was without the services of his wheelchair for seven hours and was unable to eat lunch. We agree with the district court that Appellant’s a lleged deprivation “was not serious and significant ‘enough to satisfy the objective component to an Eighth Amendment claim.’” Rec., Exh. 10, p. 2 (cit ingWilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294 (1991). We affirm the district court’s order f or the same reasons stated therein. AFFIRMED
.

Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge