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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           The Upper Pennsylvanian Pittsburgh coal bed: Resources and mine models      

      January 1, 2001    

The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a digital coal resource assessment model of the Upper Pennsylvanian Pittsburgh coal bed, which indicates that after subtracting mined-out coal, 16 billion short tons (14 billion tonnes) remain of the original 34 billion short tons (31 billion tonnes) of coal. When technical, environmental, and social restrictions are applied to the remaining Pittsburgh coal model, only 12 billion short tons (11 billion tonnes) are available for mining. Our assessment models estimate that up to 0.61 billion short tons (0.55 billion tonnes), 2.7 billion short tons (2.4 billion tonnes), and 8.5 billion short tons (7.7 billion tonnes) could be available for surface mining, continuous mining, and longwall mining, respectively. This analysis is an example of a second-generation regional coal availability study designed to model recoverability characteristics for all the major coal beds in the United States.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### William H. Orem, Ph.D.

##### Scientist Emeritus

Geology, Energy & Minerals Science Center

borem@usgs.gov

703-648-6273

## Related Content

#### William H. Orem, Ph.D.

##### Scientist Emeritus

Geology, Energy & Minerals Science Center

borem@usgs.gov

703-648-6273

### Study Area

### Contacts

#### William H. Orem, Ph.D.

##### Scientist Emeritus

Geology, Energy & Minerals Science Center

borem@usgs.gov

703-648-6273

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Upper Pennsylvanian Pittsburgh Coal Bed
                  - Maryland
                  -  Ohio
                  -  Pennsylvania
                  -  West Virginia

View All **
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 17, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS M. MATA, SR., Petitioner-Appellant,

v. JACKSON COUNTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Respondent-Appellee. No. 15-6050 (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-00134-W) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before GORSUCH , McKAY , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.
After Carlos Mata pleaded no contest to assault with intent to commit a felony, an Oklahoma state court sentenced him to two years in prison. Five years later, after he finished his prison term, Mr. Mata filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition, noting that while the federal habeas

*After examining Mr. Mata’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.statute affords it jurisdiction over persons in custody, an individual doesn’t remain “in custody” when his sentence has fully expired. Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). Alternatively, the magistrate noted that Mr. Mata faced another problem: he failed to exhaust his state law remedies before bringing his federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel , 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Indeed, it appears Mr. Mata never pursued any direct appeal instate court and he doesn’t assert that he’s attempted to avail himself of state postconviction procedures. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1080-1089. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation in full and dismissed the petition. Seeking to appeal the district court’s disposition, Mr. Mata applies to this court for a certificate of appealability. But where, as here, the district court has dismissed a habeas petition on procedural grounds, we may issue a COA only if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). And that much we do not see. Rather than addressing how the district court erred in its dispositive rulings, Mr. Mata’s submissions to us focus primarily on the relief he seeks and the merits of his argument for that relief. In those submissions we are unable to discern for ourselves a reasoned basis on which we might debate the district court’s procedural rulings.

- 2 -The application for a COA is denied and the appeal dismissed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

- 3 -
1Larry G. Massanari has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2).

2The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3813

___________

Garold Stults, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Larry G. Massanari, Acting * Western District of Missouri.

Commissioner of Social Security,1*

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 9, 2001

 Filed: July 16, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Garold Stults appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the Commissioner’s

decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We
-2-

review that decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole. See Ingram v. Chater, 107 F.3d 598, 600 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Having carefully reviewed the record, including the evidence Stults submitted

to the Appeals Council, see Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000),

we find no basis for disturbing the ALJ’s credibility determination, see Gray v. Apfel,

192 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1999) (ALJ properly discredited claimant’s subjective

complaints of pain based on discrepancy between complaints and medical evidence,

lack of pain medications, and claimant’s activities), or his conclusion that Stults had the

residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a grill operator, see

Sells v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1995) (when determining whether

claimant can perform such work, ALJ must specify demands of such work and compare

them with what claimant was capable of doing).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 13

- 00858

- CV

M. Z. and R. B., Appellant s

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, NO. 13

- 1310, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BO YER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant s M. Z. and R. B. filed their notice s of appeal on December 20, 2013
and December 23, 2013, respectively . The appellate record was complete January 17, 2014
, making appellants ’ brief s due February 6, 20 14 . On January 30, 2013 , counsel for R. B. filed a

motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition
of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Te x. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a)
(providing 180 days fo r court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this
Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order

Erick A. Bovik and Robert Galvin to file app ellants ’ brief s no later than March 11, 2014 . If the

brief s are not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why they should not be
held in contempt of court.It is ordered on February 5, 2014

.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin
, and Field
INRE: 

JUDITH HOLMES 

Debtor 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case Number: 19-25604 

EX-PARTE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER CONFIRMING PLAN, STRIKE TRUSTEE'S 

REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION, AND CONTINUING CONFIRMATION HEARING 

Nancy K Neidich, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee ("Trustee") files this Ex-Parte Motion to 

Vacate Order Confirming Plan, Strike Trustee's Request for Confirmation, and continuing 

confirmation hearing and states as follows: 

1 It appears the confirmation hearing set for August 11, 2020 may not have been properly 

noticed. 

2. The Trustee recommended that the Court enter an order confirming the plan on the 

August 11, 2020 calendar. (ECF #63). 

3. The Court entered an order of confirmation based on the Trustee's recommendation. 

4. Due to the question of notice, the order of confirmation should be vacated, the 

Trustee's request for confirmation stricken, and the confirmation hearing reset. 

WHEREFORE, the Trustee requests that this Court enter an order vacating the order of 

confirmation, striking the Trustee's request for confirmation, and noticing the confirmation 

hearing for September 22, 2020 at 1 :35 pm. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE 

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 

P.O. BOX 279806 

MIRAM R, FL 33027-9806 

y E. Carrington, Esq. 

Senior Staff Attorney 

FLORIDA BAR NO: 101877 

Case 19-25604-RAM Doc 67 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2



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 Ominto, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December
31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raoul Quijada,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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:
November 29, 2017



| | By:     | /s/
    Raoul Quijada                                                 
| | ------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:   | Raoul
Quijada                                                         
| | Titles: | Chief Financial
        Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer )
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           The use of national datasets to produce an average annual water budget for the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, 2000–13      

      May 6, 2019    

View Report

Overview

Water is a critically important resource for the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP) region, supporting a multibillion-dollar agricultural industry. There are concerns that continued withdrawals of groundwater for irrigation may decrease future water supplies. The U.S. Geological Survey has a history of conducting research in the MAP region and recently began an effort to integrate multiple monitoring analyses and modeling to characterize and project water availability for the region. Here, we utilize the data and results from existing national-scale datasets and refine them to create long-term steady state annual water budgets at a regional scale (the MAP) from 2000 to 2013. The water budget is described and mapped as the distribution of available water into three components: (1) evapotranspiration (65 percent); (2) quickflow runoff to streams (27 percent); and (3) groundwater recharge (8 percent). We also present a comparison of long-term recharge rates with groundwater extraction rates. These results will be useful as a starting point for the water budget and evaluations of future water availability in the MAP.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Data           
                  -              Connect           

September 25, 2017

####                 Annual estimates of recharge, quick-flow runoff, and ET for the contiguous US using empirical regression equations, 2000-2013              

Water Resources Mission Area

#### Meredith M Reitz, PhD

##### Research Hydrologist

Water Resources Mission Area

mreitz@usgs.gov

703-648-5834

#### Wade Kress

##### Assistant Director, Hydrologic Decision Science

Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center

wkress@usgs.gov

615-674-0702

## Related Content

September 25, 2017

####                 Annual estimates of recharge, quick-flow runoff, and ET for the contiguous US using empirical regression equations, 2000-2013              

Water Resources Mission Area

#### Meredith M Reitz, PhD

##### Research Hydrologist

Water Resources Mission Area

mreitz@usgs.gov

703-648-5834

#### Wade Kress

##### Assistant Director, Hydrologic Decision Science

Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center

wkress@usgs.gov

615-674-0702

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center - Nashville, TN Office

640 Grassmere Park DriveNashville, TN37211United States

GS-W-TNnsh Webmaster@usgs.gov

(615) 837-4700

(615) 837-4799 

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - mississippi alluvial plain
                  - Arkansas
                  -  Kentucky
                  -  Louisiana
                  -  Mississippi
                  -  Missouri
                  -  Texas

View All **
14738 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Corrections

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 544

[Docket No. 96–130; Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AG56

Insurer Reporting Requirements; List

of Insurers Required to File Reports

Correction

In proposed rule document 97–4355,

beginning on page 8206 in the issue of

Monday, February 24, 1997, make the

following correction:

Appendix B to Part 544 [Corrected]

On page 8208, in the third column, in

Appendix B to part 544, in the tenth

line ‘‘Integon Corporate Group‘‘’’,

should read ‘‘Integon Corporate Group

1’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Wastewater disposal and the earthquake sequences during 2016 near Fairview, Pawnee, and Cushing, Oklahoma      

      October 1, 2017    

Each of the three earthquake sequences in Oklahoma in 2016—Fairview, Pawnee, and Cushing—appears to have been induced by high-volume wastewater disposal within 10 km. The Fairview M5.1 main shock was part of a 2 year sequence of more than 150 events of M3, or greater; the main shock accounted for about half of the total moment. The foreshocks and aftershocks of the M5.8 Pawnee earthquake were too small and too few to contribute significantly to the cumulative moment; instead, nearly all of the moment induced by wastewater injection was focused on the main shock. The M5.0 Cushing event is part of a sequence that includes 48 earthquakes of M3, or greater, that are mostly foreshocks. The cumulative moment for each of the three sequences during 2016, as well as that for the 2011 Prague, Oklahoma, and nine other sequences representing a broad range of injected volume, are all limited by the total volumes of wastewater injected locally.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Andrew J Barbour, Ph.D.

##### Research Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

abarbour@usgs.gov

650-439-2803

## Related Content

#### Andrew J Barbour, Ph.D.

##### Research Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

abarbour@usgs.gov

650-439-2803

### Contact

####               Earthquake Science Center          

350 N. Akron RoadMoffett Field, CA94035United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Oklahoma

View All **
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1584

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Johnny Parker, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 14, 2001

Filed: March 16, 2001

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Parker was arrested after police stopped a car in which he was a

passenger; officers found drugs and a methamphetamine lab in the car, syringes and a

small vial of drugs on Parker's person, and a .22 caliber pistol on the driver's side

floorboard. Parker pleaded guilty to conspiring with the driver to manufacture

methamphetamine, and his sentence was based in part on the application of a firearm

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Parker later obtained partial relief (on

another ground) under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court resentenced Parker and
-2-

again applied the firearm enhancement, finding possession of a weapon by one actively

engaged in manufacturing illegal drugs was reasonably foreseeable.

On appeal, Parker contends the enhancement was improper because charges

were dropped against the driver, who possessed the gun, and the government did not

prove the driver's possession of the gun was in furtherance of the conspiracy or

reasonably foreseeable to Parker. We disagree. Parker admitted he conspired with the

driver to manufacture drugs, and there was no indication the gun was not connected

with the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3) (enhancement should

be applied if weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that weapon was

connected with offense); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (specific offense characteristics are

determined on basis of all reasonably foreseeable acts of others in jointly undertaken

criminal activity if taken in furtherance of jointly undertaken activity); United States v.

Jones, 195 F.3d 379, 384 (8th Cir. 1999) (firearm enhancement properly applied where

gun was found in same location as drugs); United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377,

1387 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting firearms are tools of drug dealer's trade); cf. United States

v. Barragan, 915 F.2d 1174, 1179 (8th Cir. 1990) (firearm enhancement upheld where

defendant was involved in criminal activity with co-defendant who had not been

charged on same count). 

Finding no sentencing error, we affirm the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-10690-BKC-AJC

PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER 13

IN RE:

GEORBEL BARQUIE

YANELYS RODRIGUEZ

_____________________________/

NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the above-referenced Debtors are delinquent in Confirmed Chapter 13 Plan 

Payments in the amount of $637.95.

The Debtors shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of this Notice to make all payments due under 

the Confirmed Plan/Modified Plan, INCLUDING ANY PAYMENTS THAT BECOME DUE WITHIN 

THE FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY PERIOD, in the form of a money order or cashier's check only. Payments 

must be sent to:

DEBTORS

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 2099

MEMPHIS, TN 38101-2099

If the Chapter 13 Trustee ("Trustee") does not receive all payments by September 17, 2020 to bring the 

Debtors totally current under the Confirmed Plan/Modified Plan, or if applicable, a Motion to Modify has 

not been timely filed and set within fifteen (15) days of this Notice pursuant to the Confirmation Order, the 

Trustee may file and serve a Report of Non-Compliance.

As a result of the Debtors failure to become current or timely file a Motion to Modify, the case shall be 

dismissed without further notice or hearing.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Notice of Delinquency was served, via U.S. 

first class mail and/or CM/ECF, upon the parties listed on the attached service list this 3rd day of August 

2020.

/s/ Nancy K. Neidich

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806

MIRAMAR, FL 33027-9806

_____________________________________

Case 20-10690-AJC Doc 45 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY

CASE NO.: 20-10690-BKC-AJC

SERVICE LIST

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

DEBTORS

GEORBEL BARQUIE

YANELYS RODRIGUEZ

4955 NW 199TH STREET

LOT 407

MIAMI GARDENS, FL 33055-1777

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTORS

ROBERT SANCHEZ, ESQUIRE

355 W 49 STREET

HIALEAH, FL 33012

Case 20-10690-AJC Doc 45 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 2
David G. RAWLINGS v. Lisa S. RAWLINGS

2150941

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.