alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 10, 2006
    
    /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00407-CR

John Charles GARZA,

Appellant

v.

STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-1811

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2009

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant John Charles Garza pled nolo contendere to

sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to six years and a fine of $1200 in accordance with the

terms of his plea-bargain agreement. The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to

appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-09-00407-CR

-2-

Rule 25.2(d) provides that “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the

defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d). Thus, this court issued an order stating Garza’s appeal would be dismissed unless

an amended trial court certification showing that Garza had the right of appeal was made part of the

appellate record. See Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order);

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1. No amended trial court certification has been filed. Instead, Garza’s

appellate counsel has filed a letter stating she has reviewed the appellate record and “this court has

no choice but to dismiss the appeal.” In light of the record presented, we agree with Garza’s appellate

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Dear Brenda Edwards,

Dear Jim Raba,

Thank you once again for allowing us to submit out thoughts on increasing gas compressor efficiencies.

As it would be I intend to be in Washington D.C. 23

- 25th February and would like to meet with you on that

Monday or Tuesday morning.

There are several possibilities what we could then do to make a meeting worthwhile.

A) I can explain certain positions on our input to the DoE in more detail

B) I can conduct basic compressor training to a time s lot you suggest for you and your team

C) Any other topics you suggest related to this initiative

It can be as short as an hour or for more detail it could be half a day and focus on enhancing performance

of a compressor depending on what you feel is app ropriate or possible.

I look forward discussing this project further with you.
#### Com. v. Dodson

08/22/2016

246 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 188
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Waskar Hernandez, Also Known as Oscar Hernandez, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 621]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Merely requesting a more lenient sentence failed to preserve defendant’s current claims that his postplea arrest did not constitute a violation of the plea agreement, that he substantially complied with the agreement, that the court should have inquired into the validity of the new arrest, or that the plea should have been vacated *(see People v Pollard,*132 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 1111 [2016]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
#### Com. v. Gentile

03/23/2016

888 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 99
No. 12-6791.

#### Michau *v.*Warden et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Malone

08/25/2016

107 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 598
February 2, 2015

Mr. Stephen Banas

Sierra Nevada Corporation

18632 Jarkey Drive

Hagerstown, MD 21742

Dear Mr. Banas:

This is in response to your November 19, 2014 letter sent to the public docket No. FAA2014-0976, petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Sierra Nevada 

Corporation (SNC) for an exemption from § 21.17(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow SNC to import an S15-1 

aircraft and receive an experimental research and development airworthiness certificate while 

the type design is going through the FAA validation process. 

You do not require an exemption from 14 CFR § 21.17(a) since you are seeking an 

experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of research and development that will 

support the FAA validation of the European EASA Type Design.

Prior to importing your aircraft, there are requirements that need to be met. FAA Order 

8130.2G, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, Change 1, Chapter 6, 

describes the import procedures. Once your aircraft is registered in the United States, you 

may apply for an experimental research and development airworthiness certificate. Your local 

Manufacturing Inspection District Office, located in New Cumberland, PA, can assist in 

guiding you through the process. They may be reached at 717-782-4425.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dorenda D. Baker

Director, Aircraft Certification Service
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Siebert  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Muriel F.  Siebert,  in my capacity as Chair and President of the
Company (and also having responsibilities  equivalent to Chief Financial Officer
of the  Company),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1. the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  of the  Company  at the end of the  period
covered by the  Report and the  results of  operations  of the  Company  for the
period covered by the Report.



/s/ Muriel F. Siebert                                  Dated:  November 14, 2002
------------------------------------------------
Muriel F. Siebert
Chairwoman and President (principal executive officer
and principal financial and accounting officer)
No. 12-665.

#### Santa Maria *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00029

- CR

Joe Briseno

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 2

o f Tarrant C ounty (1260102D )

May 29, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered tha t the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000065666
<NAME> MICHIGAN RIVET CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         153,605
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,693,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,534,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,253,263
<PP&E>                                      27,231,461
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,972,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,561,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,987,482
<BONDS>                                      1,824,248
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       638,525
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,013,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,561,185
<SALES>                                     34,343,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,343,856
<CGS>                                       29,035,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,035,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,786,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             183,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,337,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                   795,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,542,476
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,542,476
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.42


</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Perel

09/16/2015

30 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 107 A.3d 185
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Connecticut Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Connecticut Natural Gas Number of Commercial 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 44,172 | 44,817
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 46,861 | 44,629 | 44,137 | 45,530 | 46,681 | 48,499 | 49,056 |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 50,132 | 50,170 | 50,312 | 48,976 | 51,613 | 54,165 | 55,641 | 56,245 | 56,458 | 58,848
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 59,022 | 60,182 | 60,389 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Natural Gas LNG Imports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Natural Gas LNG Imports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar  | Apr   | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep   | Oct | Nov  | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | ---- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | --- | ---- | ---
|2014                                                                                                                              |     |     |      | 17.34 |     |     |     |     | 11.71 |     |      |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|2015                                                                                                                              |     |     | 8.74 |       |     |     |     |     |       |     | 7.41 |    
|- = 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
Members of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservati on and Recovery met with members of the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) on July 15 to hear their concerns about stigma associated with roofing products made with coal combustion boile r slag if the Agency decides to finalize a Subtitle C rule. ARMA made the following points: 

### • In 2009, ARMA used over 1 million tons of boiler slag for roofing shingles. 

### • Based on their history of being on the wrong end of negative advertising regarding health effects of asphalt (a NIOSH study conducted in 2000, the findings of which were apparently taken out of context by a competitor), asphalt roofing manufacturers are certain the same will happen if CCRs are regulated as a hazardous waste. 

### • They don't see any distinction betw een listing as a special waste and listing as a hazardous waste. 

### • Even if beneficial use is excluded from regulation, regulation as a hazardous waste will lead to a hazardous waste stigma. 

### • The Stigma effect associated with a C-rule would compel them to switch from boiler slag to silica sand, a material associated with occupational heal th risk from silicosis, or crushed rock, which involves a larger expenditure of energy, carbon dioxide emissions, and virgin material. 

### • How will spills of CCRs during the manufacturin g process and during trans portation be classified? 

### • What is the status of slag that has not entered the manufacturing process (i.e., purchased but never used) and of off-spec material?
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUG 20, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11059 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 04- 00263- C R - 001 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s P E R C Y M C C L I N T O N S N O W , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 20, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an dH IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D enni s J . K ni zl ey , appo i nt ed coun se l for P er cyE l l i s S no w i n thi s di re ct c r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the2

ap p e lla n t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and S no w ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Germany (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Germany (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan    | Feb    | Mar    | Apr    | May    | Jun    | Jul    | Aug    | Sep    | Oct    | Nov    | Dec   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2022                                                                                                                              | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 7,112 
|2023                                                                                                                              | 14,314 | 8,229  | 24,841 | 18,546 | 16,002 | 15,769 | 17,245 | 20,709 | 17,228 | 17,901 | 14,382 | 19,439
|2024                                                                                                                              | 17,371 | 16,715 | 17,060 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
#### Graham, Matter of, v Rawley

2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1018 (Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3)

denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14328]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court for the Central District of California dated April 21st, 
1993, and filed April 23, 1993, the United States Small Business 
Administration hereby revokes the license of Business Equity & 
Development Corporation, a California corporation, to function as a 
small business investment company under Small Business Investment 
Company License No. 09/12-5151 issued to Business Equity & Development 
Corporation on March 19, 1970 and said license is hereby declared null 
and void as of April 23, 1993.

    Dated: May 20, 1998.

Small Business Administration.
Harry E. Haskins,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-14328 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P