alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 29, 2013

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Drillinginfo

In 2011 and 2012, more than 50% of new wells produced both oil and natural gas. Despite this phenomenon, many traditional

methods for estimating oil and natural gas production attempt to track the development of oil and natural gas as separate rather than

joint activities.

The analytical framework of EIA's new Drilling Productivity Report (DPR) accounts for integrated production of natural gas and liquid

hydrocarbons. In some cases, the classification of oil- or gas-targeted rigs, which is the focus of traditional rig-count methods, has

changed from day to day. A more meaningful way to classify wells is to allocate the amount of oil and natural gas that can be

expected to flow from each new well in a given play. This approach uses oil and natural gas production at the well before any flaring,

refining, or gas processing. As such, all hydrocarbon production in the liquid state at the wellhead is treated as oil, and all

unprocessed gas production (known as gross production) is treated as natural gas.

Oil and natural gas producers adjust their formation targeting in response to changes in the market value of natural gas and liquid

hydrocarbons in an attempt to focus on the more profitable products. In some plays, careful study of the geology allows the producers

to maximize production of the more profitable hydrocarbons (liquids or gases), based on current and expected market prices.

Drilling often results in both oil and natural gas production - Today in En... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13571

1 of 2 1/21/2014 3:39 PM
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Drillinginfo

Note: Mcf = thousand cubic feet; bbl = barrel; Btu = British thermal units

For example, the chart above shows the decrease in the ratio of natural gas to oil production from new wells drilled in the Eagle Ford

region. This decrease coincided with the widespread application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques in liquids-rich

reservoirs and a relative increase in the price of oil compared to the price of natural gas.

The production estimates developed in the DPR include both the oil and natural gas volumes produced from typical new wells in a

region without attempting to distinguish between oil and natural gas coming from wells designated as oil wells or gas wells. By

aggregating portfolios of active rigs in specific regions with observable oil and natural gas production characteristics, EIA's approach

shows emerging trends and produces improved estimates of production in the current and following month.

For a dynamic perspective of the shale gas and other tight oil development in the Eagle Ford, see EIA's animation of new well

locations over time.

A future Today in Energy article will focus on how drilling efficiency relates to estimates of oil and natural gas production.

Principal contributors: Jozef Lieskovsky, Sam Gorgen

Drilling often results in both oil and natural gas production - Today in En... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13571

2 of 2 1/21/2014 3:39 PM
EXHIBIT 12



FIRST REPUBLIC PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION

(A Majority Owned Subsidiary of First Republic Bank)



STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                                  |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | ----- | ---- | - | -----
|                                                  |  | Three MonthsEnded March 31,
|(Dollars in thousands)                            |  | 2005                        |       | 2004
|I.        Earnings:                               |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Net income before preferred stock dividends       |  | $                           | 3,947 |      | $ | 3,998
|Fixed charges excluding preferred stock dividends |  |                             |      |      |   |     
|                                                  |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Earnings before fixed charges                     |  | $                           | 3,947 |      | $ | 3,998
|                                                  |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|II.      Fixed charges:                           |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|Preferred stock dividends                         |  | $                           | 3,562 |      | $ | 3,563
|                                                  |  |                             |       |      |   |      
|III.     Ratios of earnings to fixed charges      |  |                             | 1.11x |      |   | 1.12x
|                                                  |  |                             |       |      |   |
EXHIBIT 32

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 BOE Financial Services of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (the Form
10-Q) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); 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 March 31, 2006, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas       
|Bruce E. Thomas           
|Chief Financial Officer   

May 19, 2006



Page: 19
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RANDY B. PETERSILGE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-3826

June 14, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Mary M. Handsel, 

Judge.

Christina Lynn LaMaida of Stevens & LaMaida PLLC, Dade City, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Taylor A. Schell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1085-20

ANDRE MONTREL WOODS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

ANGELINA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The trial court appointed appellate counsel.

When the trial court clerk originally filed the record in the court of appeals, the

clerk failed to include the court’s charge from guilt/innocence and the corresponding jury

verdict. Appellate counsel requested supplementation of the clerk’s record without

specifying which documents were missing. Several months later, counsel sent another

request for supplementation, this time specifically seeking supplementation with the
WOODS – 2

court’s charge from the guilt/innocence phase.

Counsel eventually filed an appeal brief alleging three points of error, all of which

are based entirely on the fact that the court’s charge on guilt and the verdict were missing

from the clerk’s record. About a week after the brief was filed, the clerk’s record was

supplemented to include the charge on guilt and the verdict. The court of appeals issued

an opinion, holding that all three of appellant’s issues were without merit in view of the

fact that the record had been supplemented with the documents. Woods v. State, No. 12-

19-00350-CR slip op. (Tex. App.–Tyler Oct. 30, 2020)(not designated for publication).

Pro se appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review, alleging that his

counsel was ineffective, that he was denied a meaningful appeal, and seeking the

appointment of another appellate counsel or the ability to file a pro se appeal. We agree

that appellant was denied a meaningful appeal.

The three issues presented in appellant’s brief on appeal all seek relief based upon

the claim that the court’s charge at guilt/innocence, and its corresponding jury verdict,

were not contained within the clerk’s record. When the record was supplemented with

those documents a week after the brief was filed and well before appeal was final, the

three points of error were rendered procedurally moot. As such, appellant effectively

received no meaningful appeal. He was, at the very least, entitled to appellate counsel

who would file an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We summarily grant appellant’s petition, vacate the decision of the court of
WOODS – 3

appeals and remand to that court with instructions to abate the appeal and remand the

cause to the trial court so that appellant may be returned to the point in time at which he

may, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. See Ward v. State, 740 S.W.2d

794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Further, all time limits shall be calculated as if the notice of

appeal were given on the date the mandate issues from this Court.

DELIVERED February 10, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                  33
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       959
<PP&E>                                              94,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                      94,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,887
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,292,213)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           959
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    14,149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (51,500)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (65,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (65,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (65,649)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
KIK Technology International, Inc.
File No. 000-30071


          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 KIK Technology  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  April 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, William M.  Knooihuizen,  Chief  Executive  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:  (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: June 14, 2006                       By: /s/ William M. Knooihuizen
      -------------                          -----------------------------------
                                                          William M. Knooihuizen
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of KIK Technology  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  April 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Kuldip C. Baid, Chief 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:  (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: June 14, 2006                       By: /s/ Kuldip C. Baid
      -------------                          -----------------------------------
                                                                  Kuldip C. Baid
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to KIK  Technology  International,  Inc.  and will be  retained by KIK
Technology  International,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### EAST KENTUCKY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Mazie HALL et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 3, 1957.

See also, 301 S.W.2d 891.'

Strange & Pendleton, M. E. Strange, Stanton, for appellant.

John L. Cox, Jr., Stanton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment entered in the Powell Circuit *892Court. Appellant, by the exercise of eminent domain, obtained an easement 100 feet wide and 897 feet long across a 984 acre farm belonging to appellees. In the condemnation suit, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees in the sum of $1,250.

Appellant contends that the damage is excessive and relies upon Salt River Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation v. Thurman, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 780, to support its position. We pointed out in Tennessee Gas Transmission Company v. Teater, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 674, that there is no hard and fast rule to use in determining damages in condemnation proceedings.

Appellees properly showed, under the rule announced in Miller v. King, 278 Ky. 151, 128 S.W.2d 621, that part of their property was very near the city of Stanton and was adaptable for building or subdivision purposes which would be injured by the installation of a transmission line carrying approximately 69,000 volts.

The verdict is amply supported by the evidence introduced and we have found no error prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

SIMS, Judge.

I respectfully dissent in this case for the reasons found in the opinion in Salt River Rural Electric Co-op Corp. v. Thurman, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 780.

True, in the Thurman case we said there is no hard and fast rule by which to measure damages in condemning land, and each case is ordinarily controlled by its own peculiar facts. Generally a verdict will not be disturbed as excessive unless it shows bias or prejudice or is based on estimates unsupported by facts or is so extravagant as to create a probability the estimates are incorrect.

In the instant case only three poles, without guy wires, were erected on this right-of-way, 100 feet wide and 897 feet long. The land physically occupied by the poles amounts in the aggregate only to about six square feet. The only material damage in this instance to the landowners is that part of their property is near the city of Stanton and is adaptable for building or for subdivision purposes. ' The majority opinion says such use of the land would be damaged by the installation of a transmission line carrying approximately 69,000 volts.

While I admit this is a proper element of damage, yet the use of this property for the purpose of building or for making a subdivision cannot materialize until the distant future, as I read the record, and I feel the judgment of $1,250 is grossly excessive. I cannot uphold a judgment allowing $208-33 a square foot for the taking of farm land even though there may be some slight damage to the owners by reason of the easement running over their land.

It is for this reason that I dissent.
#### ALLIED FINANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. J. W. BUTAUD et ux., Appellees.

No. 6494.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Oct. 26, 1961.

Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, Dallas, for appellants.

Arthur N. Bishop, Jr., Dallas, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the Allied Finance Company et al., from an order of the trial court overruling its plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas County. There is no statement of facts, and no findings of fact or conclusions of law either separately or in the order overruling the plea of privilege. In their brief appellants assert there was no evidence introduced by either party on the hearing of this plea in the trial court, and this statement is not challenged by appellees. Therefore, under Rule 419, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we may accept this statement as true. In addition, it may be said that counsel for appellees in the oral argument before this court stated he did not know whether there was *959any evidence offered, because he was not present at the time set for the hearing before the trial court. In this situation, we accept as true that no evidence was heard by the trial court.

Appellees relied upon Sections 9, 9a and 23 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St., in their controverting affidavit to sustain venue in Jefferson County. The law is well settled that where a plea of privilege is filed, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing the venue facts. Hollis v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 315 S.W.2d 350. The burden was on appellees as plaintiffs to make proof of such facts as would hold venue in the county where the action was brought. Harris v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co., Tex.Civ.App., 315 S.W.2d 317. They had the burden of pleading as well as proving a cause of action. Lone Star Gas Co. v. Martin Linen Supply Co., Tex.Civ.App., 301 S.W.2d 243. The authorities are all in accord, and no useful purpose would be served by further citation. Appellees having failed to make any proof, did not discharge the burden resting upon them.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and we order this case transferred to Dallas County.
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: May 10, 2007 /s/ Linda L. Perry Linda L. Perry, Principal Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6720

DOUGLAS B. SEIBERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-00-495)

Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas B. Seibert, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas B. Seibert seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Seibert

v. Angelone, No. CA-00-495 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2001). 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