alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 77-110]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Extension of Comment 
Due Date

May 19, 1998.
    On April 13, 1998, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued notice of an application for amendment of the 
license for the Potter Valley Project (FERC No. 77-110) and of our 
intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Published 4/
17/98, 63 FR 19247), in support of the Commission's decision in this 
matter. The proposed amendment involves changes in the minimum flow 
requirements at the project, located on the Eel and East Fork Russian 
Rivers, in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California.
    The notice established June 8, 1998 as the deadline for submitting 
any comments, protests, or motions to intervene in the proceeding.
    Take notice that the deadline for submitting any comments, 
protests, or motions to intervene in the proceeding is hereby extended 
to June 15, 1998.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13834 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
No. 12-8606.

#### Harmer *v.*Brandon, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13492]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP85-221-105]]


Frontier Gas Storage Company; Notice of Sale Pursuant to 
Settlement Agreement

May 15, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 12, 1998, Frontier Gas Storage Company 
(Frontier), c/o Reid & Priest, Market Square, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., 
N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004, in compliance with provisions 
of the Commission's February 13, 1985, Order in Docket No. CP82-487-
000, et al., submitted an executed Service Agreement under Rate 
Schedule LVS-1 providing for the possible sale of up to a daily 
quantity of 30,000 MMBtu, not to exceed 5 Bcf of Frontier's gas storage 
inventory on an ``as metered'' basis to Prairielands Energy Marketing, 
Inc., for term ending May 31, 1999.
    Under Subpart (b) of Ordering Paragraph (F) of the Commission's 
February 13, 1985, Order, Frontier is ``authorized to commence the sale 
of its inventory under such an executed service agreement fourteen days 
after filing the agreement with the Commission, and may continue making 
such sale unless the Commission issues an order either requiring 
Frontier to stop selling and setting the matter for hearing or 
permitting the sale to continue and establishing other procedures for 
resolving the matter.''
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make a protest with reference 
to said filing should, within 10 days of the publication in such notice 
in the Federal Register, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (888 1st Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426) a motion to 
intervene or protest in accordance with the requirements of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures, 18 CFR 385.214 or 
385.211. 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 proceeding. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13492 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 12-218.

No. 12-5812.

No. 12-5847.

#### Brooks *v.*United States; Phillips *v.*United States; and Walton *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 681 F. 3d 678.
No. 12-458.

#### W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. *v.*C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Motions of Ananda M. Chakrabarty and E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. et al. for leave to file briefs as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions and this petition.
No. 12-7554.

#### Jacques *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8120.

#### Byars *v.*Michigan.

Cir. Ct. Washtenow County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Texas Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Texas Natural Gas Number of Residential 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                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 3,543,027 | 3,600,505 | 3,613,863
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3,704,501 | 3,738,260 | 3,809,370 | 3,859,647 | 3,939,100 | 3,984,480 | 4,067,507 |           |           |          
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4,287,929 | 4,326,076 | 4,369,990 | 4,424,037 | 4,469,220 | 4,515,624 | 4,572,975 | 4,633,244 | 4,702,285 | 4,786,829
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,895,799 | 5,014,419 | 5,097,037 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = 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
# L_2010342EN.01001601.xml

| 28.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 342/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/16

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 15 December 2010

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

(2010/804/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Portugal submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by landslides and flooding on Madeira Island. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Portugal submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by landslides and flooding on Madeira Island.

| (5) | France submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by the storm ‘Xynthia’, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

France submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by the storm ‘Xynthia’,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 66 891 540 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 15 December 2010.

For the European Parliament

The President

J. BUZEK

For the Council

The President

O. CHASTEL

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27751-27752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-02148]


Sangamon, Inc., Taylorville, Illinois; Revised Determination on 
Reconsideration

    In response to a letter of March 26, 1998, from the United States 
Paperworkers International Union (UPIU) Local 637, requesting 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's denial of NAFTA-TAA 
for workers of the subject firm, the Department reopened its 
investigation for the former workers of Sangamon, Incorporated. The 
workers produce everyday and seasonal greeting cards.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
issued on March 6, 1998, because criteria (3) and (4) of paragraph 
(a)(1) of section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were not 
met. Sangamon, Incorporated did not import greeting cards from sources 
located in Mexico or Canada, nor was there a shift in production of 
greeting cards from the Taylorville plant to Mexico or Canada. 
Furthermore, a survey of the subject firm's customers revealed that 
none of the customers reported any purchases of greeting cards from 
Mexico or Canada in 1996 or 1997. The denial notice was published in 
the Federal Register on March 23, 1998 (63 FR 13879).
    On reconsideration, the Department conducted further survey 
analysis of the major declining customer of Sangamon, Incorporated. New 
survey information shows that the major declining customer has indirect 
import purchases of greeting cards from Canada while reducing purchases 
from the subject firm.

[[Page 27752]]

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles from 
Canada like or directly competitive with greeting cards, contributed 
importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or 
partial separation of workers of Sangamon, Incorporated. In accordance 
with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:

    All workers of Sangamon, Incorporated, Taylorville, Illinois, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after January 22, 1997 through two years from the date of the 
certification, are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under section 250 
of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-13417 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Rio Grande, TX  Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Rio Grande, TX  Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico (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       | 8,045  | 310,965 | 573,446 | 695,142 | 685,211 | 667,956
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 586,707 | 541,488 | 547,381 | 581,477 |        |         |         |         |         |        
|- = 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. 12-8052.

#### Bolner *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|North Carolina Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|North Carolina Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,030  | 1,027  | 1,023 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,015  | 1,011  | 1,011  | 1,011  | 1,021  | 1,035  | 1,035  | 1,036  | 1,029  | 1,031 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,033  | 1,034  | 1,031  | 1,033  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
After decades of delayed implementation, the EPA is proposing cleanup of some of the greatest

sources of pollution contributing to dirty air quality in the region. This pollution is preventable and

EPA is simply proposing that pollution controls used nationwide also be used here.

Because this will lead to much needed and much improved air quality at our country’s iconic

national parks such as Grand Canyon and Petrified Forest, NPCA supports this plan.

Cholla coal plant, for example, alone is responsible for more damage to air quality at our national

parks and wilderness areas than any other power plant reviewed to date.

EPA says Arizona’s plan is technically inadequate, with flawed calculations and reasoning — and that

it doesn’t live up to the letter of the law. EPA proposes to replace that flawed plan by requiring

common, cost-effective, modern pollution controls at these plants.

Plant owners will try to avoid this investment with the same rhetoric used when in labornegotiations — it is too expensive and will force us to shut down plants. While in a few cases across

the country this level of pollution control has led to older units being closed, but in the vast majority

of cases the controls have been installed without problems, leading to more local jobs and cleaner

air at the same time.

NPCA favors EPA’s approach because it adheres to legal requirements for cleaning up park skies and

will have dramatic benefits for our air quality in our deserts and all of us who live in them. Clearer

park skies from this plan’s enforcement will be demonstrable. And clear skies will not be the only

result: human health, health of the plants, the animals, the water and the land itself will also realize

great and invaluable benefits. Benefits that have not been taken into account of cost benefits

assessments, but rightly should be

Our parks are a great resource for us. Economically, many of us depend on tourists that would never

set foot here without our parks. Spiritually, we all need a place to refresh and reconnect with the

natural world — places that tell our stories, our cultural heritage. But we have an obligation toprotect these places if we want them to be around and enjoyable for our grandchildren.

EPA’s plan isn’t perfect, and it’s only one step on the road to restoring air quality to full health. But

it’s a good, strong start. NPCA wants our future generations to have clean, healthy air, and we

support the proposed plan because it gets us one step closer.
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico (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      | 2,725  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 6,294 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6,746  | 3,367  | 3,292  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00100-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.Z.L., S.E.L., A.S.L. AKA A.L., AND Z.E.N.B.L. AKA Z.L.,

CHILDREN

Appeal from the 309th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2011-18283).

TO THE 309TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 21st day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

After inspecting the record of the court below, the 

Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that the appellant, K.E.S.-L. pay all 

appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 21, 2015.
Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices 

Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 3, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT