alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Workshop, February 24‐25, 2011, Workshop 1, C

Tracking Fracture Fluid Movem

with Chemical and Gamma‐Emi

Tracers with Verification by

Microseismic Recording

George E. King

Apache Corporation
Sources of Tracing and Monito

Data

Data Sources Sources – Pre Completion Completion Data Sources Frac & 

• 3‐D seismic

• Geological structure

Data Sources – Frac & 

• Frac pump record 

Geological structure to Microseismic

map

• Petrophysical Evals

to Microseismic

• Low‐level gamma 

marking of prop

• Drilling / Logging• Mud‐Logs & Gas

Shows

marking of prop

• Fluid tracers in ba

Shows • Recovered brine s

• Offset well production

Recovered brine s

vol, rate & ion ana

• Production respon

EUR, Fluids and ch

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Using All The Data to Help

Understand The Frac

Behavior.
Gary Lash – SU

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Tracers

• Chemical Tracers

– Which zones flow – Long term stability stability –

Intermittent?

– Extraneous water entry

– Well‐to well interference

– Complexity development?

• Gamma‐Emitting Tracers,

– Where fracs initiate & did diversion work– Transverse or Longitudinal? – careful!

– Frac‐to‐frac and well‐to‐well interference

– Secondary Frac initiation?

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Tabular Form – What does it tell 

ChemicalTracer

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Flow Back on Sequential Frac

What happened tBit of a mystery!

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Combined Tracers as a Productio

Shaded area in Fig center is

contribution of each stageto the flow as calculated

from mass balance.

Fluid tracer conc. in back

flow against vol prod (left

side of fig)  ‐ est. comm. of

frac w/ wellbore & howconnection changes over

time or volume produced produced.

Right side of fig is amount of

fluid tracer recovered from

each t d race stage and is areflection of the amount of

traced load fluid actually

recovered.

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Reaction of the frac reflected in 

Pumping Record

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Tracers

Effect of increasing increasing complexit

complexit

Avg ppb 15.7 3.9 9.0 11.7 10.1 8.0 10.2 

% l b f S 8 2% 2 1% 4 7% 6 1% 5 3% 4 2% 5 3% 

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 

% total ppb from Stage 8.2% 2.1% 4.7% 6.1% 5.3% 4.2% 5.3% 

% total ppb @ last sample 28.2% 8.6% 6.8% 24.5% 12.2% 4.9% 10.1% 
Conclusions ‐ Microseismic

• Potential shape and volume of S

(stim lated (stimulated rock vol me) u

–Hydraulic connection?–Fault location & actuation warnin–Hi hg and low b k rea out–Frac cloud direction

• Tracer confirms complexity and 

sources d i ur ng recovery

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 
Poor Complexity – Tracer Returned Qu

The show

case

beinfrom 

2/28/2011 SPE 140105 

desig
T2H Spect

Gamma‐Emitter Tracers(Tagged Sand) T2H Spect

Sand)

PROPPANT COM

FROM T1H 
Conclusions

• Chemical Tracers are a very effecti

tracking resource resource for identifying identifying so

so

of fluids recovered over periods of 

year in some cases.

• Combining monitoring and tracing

methods is a powerful tool forunderstanding understanding fracs in a new area

2/28/2011 SPE 140105
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNICAPITAL
CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,772
<SECURITIES>                                     3,417
<RECEIVABLES>                                  424,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,838
<INVENTORY>                                     79,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           9,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                     908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,669,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                     817,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,669,523
<SALES>                                        365,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,930
<CGS>                                          318,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  455,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   814
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,007
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
        

</TABLE>
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 annual report of The Quantum Group, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald B. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Signed on June 19, 2007



/s/Donald B. Cohen

Donald B. Cohen

Chief Financial Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7286

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SWAIN CLARKE, a/k/a Swain Clark , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00503

- JKB

- 1; 1:19

- cv - 00815

- JKB )

Submitted : January 17, 202 3 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Swain Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7286 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Swain Clarke appeals the district c ourt’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our review of the record
confirms that the district co urt properly construed Clarke’s Rule 60(b) motion as a
successive § 225 5 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § § 2244(b)(3)(A) , 2255(h) ; McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Ac cordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Clarke’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Clarke’s
claim does not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional pro cess.
AFFIRMED

∗ A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized , successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7286 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Offer Letter



 Exhibit 10.1 
 

 
 December 18, 2007 
 PERSONAL
AND CONFIDENTIAL 
 Timothy P. Losik 
 525 South Road

 Rye, NH 03870 
 Subject:
      Permanent Job Offer 
 Dear Tim: 
 StockerYale, Inc, is pleased to offer you a full time, permanent position as Chief Operating/Financial Officer reporting to Mark Blodgett, CEO, starting as soon as possible on or after January 14, 2008. The details of
this offer are the following: 
  

	 	•	 	 Your salary and benefits will be in conformity with the programs and policies in effect or those that StockerYale, Inc., Salem, New Hampshire can modify and
institute at one time or another or which may be required by the applicable laws. A benefits summary is enclosed. 


  

			
	Base Salary 	  	Your annual salary is $200,000 to be paid on a weekly basis. From this amount will be subtracted the deductions required by the law and those necessary to compensate the benefits which will
be provided to you. Your salary will be directly deposited into your account, by bank transfer, every week.

  

			
	 Compensation 
 Review 
 Restricted Stock Grants
	  	 After six months on or about June 30, 2008 you will be eligible for a compensation review.
 You will be eligible for an initial grant of 150,000 shares vesting over four years and for additional performance-based annual grants from the board of
directors’ compensation committee (Eligible June 30, 2008). We expect that those additional grants would be in line with this initial grant based on our performance expectations.

		
	Vacation	  	You have the right to four (4) weeks of vacation per year effective immediately.

  

			
	 Insurance 
 Plans and Benefits Executive Life
Insurance
	  	On February 1, 2008, you will be eligible for the company’s collective insurance plans, including health, disability and life. On appointment, you will be
eligible for an executive life insurance policy of 2 x’s your salary.

  

 1 








 We ask you to sign two documents entitled “Code of Business Conduct and Ethics” and “Non-Competition,
Non-solicitation and Confidentiality Agreement” on your start date. 
 We are very pleased to offer you this position. Mark, Ray, Ben, Phil and I are
all looking forward to working with you. If you have any questions, please call me at any time. 
  

									
		 		 	Accepted on: 1/7/08
					
	By: 	 	/s/ Marianne Moffeur	 		 	Signature: 	 	/s/ Timothy P. Losik
		 	Marianne Moffeur	 		 		 	Timothy P. Losik
		 	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	 		 		 	

  

 2
EX-10.4 AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT



 





Exhibit 10.4



November 9, 2007




	 	 	 
	To:

	 	Oxford Industries, Inc.
	 

	 	222 Piedmont Avenue, N.E.
	 

	 	Atlanta, Georgia 30308
	 

	 	Attn: Thomas C. Chubb III
	 

	 	Telephone: 404-653-1415
	 

	 	Facsimile: 404-653-1545
	 
	 	 
	From

	 	Bank of America, N.A.
	 

	 	c/o Banc of America Securities LLC
	 

	 	9 West 57th Street, 40th Floor
	 

	 	New York, NY 10019
	 

	 	Attn: John Servidio
	 

	 	Telephone: 212-847-6527
	 

	 	Facsimile: 212-230-8610
	 
	 	 
	Re:

	 	Issuer Forward Repurchase Transaction
	 

	 	(Transaction Reference Number: NY-32445)





Ladies and Gentlemen:




     Reference is made to the letter agreement (the “Confirmation”) for the Issuer Forward
Repurchase Transaction dated November 8, 2007 (the “Transaction”) between Bank of America, N.A.
(“BofA”) and Oxford Industries, Inc. (“Counterparty”). Capitalized terms herein shall the mean
ascribed to them in the Confirmation.



     On the date first written above, BofA and the Counterparty agreed to amend the Confirmation
for the Transaction by deleting the Initial Shares and Initial Share Delivery Date and replacing
them with the following terms:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Initial Share Delivery Date:
	 	November 16, 2007.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Initial Shares:
	 	1,600,000 Shares	 	 






     All other terms and conditions set forth in the Confirmation are unchanged and remain in full
effect.



 









 




Please confirm your agreement to be bound by the terms stated herein by executing the copy of this
amendment notice and returning it to us by e-mail as soon as possible.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	   Yours sincerely,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	/s/ Jake Mendelsohn
 







	 

	 	Name:	 	Jake Mendelsohn	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Vice President	 	 






     Confirmed as of the date first above written:



     OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Thomas C. Chubb III
 

Thomas C. Chubb III
	 	  
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Executive Vice President
No. 43165.

#### Protest 979682-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingee, J.

In accordance with stipulation of council and on the authority of Abstract 38680 the needle threaders in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Dixon v. Bowerman , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -3049
D IXON , A PPELLANT , v . B OWERMAN , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it

may be cited as Dixon v. Bowerman , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3049.] Habeas corpus—Successive habeas corpus petition barred by res judicata—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. (No. 2019-1600—Submitted March 10, 2020—Decided May 27, 2020.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-19-1155, 2019-Ohio-4435.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In 2006, appellant, William Dixon, was sentenced to an aggregat e prison term of 21 years after be ing convicted of multiple crime s. State v. Dixon , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21823, 2008-Ohio-755, ¶ 13. His convictio ns and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Id . at ¶ 53. {¶ 2} In 2018, Dixon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Sixth District Court of Appeals asserting multiple grounds for relief

. State ex rel. DixonS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 v. Bowerman , 156 Ohio St.3d 317, 2019-Ohio-716, 126 N.E.3d 1086, ¶ 2. The
Sixth District di smissed the petition, id . at ¶ 3, and this court affirmed, id . at ¶ 5. {¶ 3} In 2019, Dixon filed another pe tition seeking habeas relief. T he Sixth District dismissed that petition as well, holding that Dixon’s claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata and that he had an adequate remedyat law. 2019-Ohio4435, ¶ 10-11. Dixon appeals to thi s court as of right. {¶ 4} Because “[r]es judicata bars p etitioners from filing successive habeas corpus petitions,” Bevins v. Richard , 144 Ohio St.3d 54, 2015-Ohio-2832, 40 N.E.3d 1108, ¶ 4, we affirm. Dixon’s motion for leave to file an amended brief is
denied. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ William Dixon, pro se. Dave Yost, Attorney General, and William H. Lamb, Assistant Att orney General, for appellee.

_________________
No. 65732.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/28137, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
33752.

#### LaMONTAGNE v. GRIFFIN.

Marshall, Justice.

This is an alimony modification suit. Code Ann. § 30-220 (as amended, Ga. L. 1977, pp. 1253, 1254). The trial court found that although liabilities incurred by the former husband have increased since the date of the parties’ 1968 divorce decree, his income has also increased to the extent that his overall financial status has *99improved. This finding is supported by the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court, which orders the child support provisions of the divorce decree increased from $50 per month per child to $80 per month per child, is affirmed. *Livsey v. Livsey,*234 Ga. 53 (214 SE2d 520) (1975).

Submitted July 10, 1978

Decided September 7, 1978.

*Roger B. Lane,*for appellant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7451

CLIFTON PAUL BRINEGAR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-98-650-WMN)

Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton Paul Brinegar, Appellant Pro Se. Regina Hollins Lewis,

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Clifton Paul Brinegar appeals the district court’s order

denying his petition for habeas corpus relief and dismissing with

prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Brinegar v. Corcoran, No. CA-98-650-

WMN (D. Md. Sept. 16, 1998). Although the district court determined that Appellant’s claim regarding the involuntariness of his

plea was procedurally defaulted (R. 11 at 8), we find that Appellant properly preserved the claim. (R. 8 at tab 5). Nevertheless,

a review of the record shows that the claim lacks merit. See

Fields v Attorney Gen of Md., 956 F.2d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1992).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8841]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-409-000]


Black Marlin Pipeline Company; Notice of Cash-Out Report

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, Black Marlin Pipeline Company 
(Black Marlin) tendered for filing its annual cash-out report for the 
calendar year ended December 31, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated 
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or 
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve 
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bcdced9c8c4e5e7e2e5eed8fefbfbe4f9ffcbedeef9e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f696a7d6c60414346414a7c5a5f5f405d5b6f494a5d4c01484059">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time, May 9, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8841 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BROOKS T. BROWN, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

8 USCMA 591, 25 CMR 95

No. 10,618

Decided January 10, 1958

*Lieutenant (jg) W. W. MeNeilly, Jr.,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Craig McKee,*USN, and *Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

The accused in this ease was charged with desertion under Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885. He pleaded not guilty as charged but guilty to the lesser offense of absence without leave under Article 86 of the Code, supra, 10 USC § 886. On the question of intent to remain away permanently necessary to a conviction of desertion, the law officer instructed the court as follows:

> “The court is further advised that if the condition of the accused’s absence without proper authority is much prolonged and there is no satisfactory explanation of it, the court will be justified in ■ inferring from that alone the intent to remain absent permanently. It is a question of fact solely within the province of the court to determine whether the condition of the accused’s absence is much prolonged. It is also a question solely within the province of the court to determine whether there has been a *592satisfactory explanation of the accused’s absence.”

A similar instruction was held by this Court to be both erroneous and prejudicial in the case of United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382. See also United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287. For the reasons set forth in those decisions, the conviction of desertion is reversed and the record is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to a board of review. The board, in its discretion, may affirm the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence or It may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(concurring in the result):

I concur in the result for the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in United States v Sumrel, 8 USCMA 399, 24 CMR 209.