alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                                            
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Nebraska Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### Vrej Baghoomian, Appellant, v Gerard Basquiat, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered March 28, 1990, which granted the motion to quash plaintiffs subpoena duces tecum, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

On September 22, 1989, Ms. Ordover, a Law Assistant-Referee in New York County Surrogate’s Court, at the express direction of Surrogate Roth, met with defendant and his counsel for the purpose of settling a proceeding then pending in Surrogate’s Court. In the underlying proceedings, plaintiff, an art dealer, claims that he had an oral contract with the decedent to sell decedent’s paintings on consignment, and seeks to prevent the sale of decedent’s paintings by decedent’s father, the defendant herein.

During the September 22,1989 settlement conference, plaintiff claims that his reputation as an art dealer was damaged due to the defamatory statements allegedly made to Ms. Ordover by defendant.

Plaintiff commenced this defamation action on October 2, 1989. On October 31, 1989, he served a subpoena duces tecum on Ms. Ordover, seeking to obtain testimony and written notes taken by Ms. Ordover during the private conference. On Ms. Ordover’s motion, the subpoena was quashed.

Ms. Ordover maintains that she has no interest in the defamatory action and that all settlement discussions before *125her were in her official capacity as a representative of the Surrogate. She further argues that all of her written material is also immune from disclosure, in that Canon 3 (A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR 100.3 [a] [6]) expressly forbids Judges and their representatives from publicly commenting about matters pending before them. We agree that under the circumstances the subpoena was properly quashed. Public policy encourages the settlement of lawsuits and directs that Judges and their law assistants take part in settlement conferences without fear that they may be called to testify about materials or information obtained during these private conferences *(Matter of Herald Cos. v Town of Geddes,*122 Misc 2d 236).

We have examined defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
#### WILEY v. STATE.

No. 26839.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant,

Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at six months in jail and a fine of $250.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4585 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4585

To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial staple fibers of viscose 
     rayon, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial staple fibers of viscose 
     rayon, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ARTIFICIAL STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON, NOT CARDED, 
              COMBED OR OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00         Artificial staple  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          fibers of viscose                                                 12/31/2015
                          rayon, not
                          carded, combed or
                          otherwise
                          processed for
                          spinning,
                          measuring greater
                          than 1 decitex to
                          1.3 decitex and
                          having a fiber
                          length each
                          measuring 20 mm
                          or more but not
                          over 150 mm
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5504.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTOINE JEREMY WIGGINS, a/k/a Twan, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-98- 583-AMD, CA-01-2533-AMD) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Antoine Jeremy Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. James Gerard Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Antoine Jeremy Wiggins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Wiggins , Nos. CR-98-583- AMD; CA-01-2533-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 13, 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4653 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4653

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain portable gas grills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain portable gas grills.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PORTABLE GAS GRILLS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Portable gas        Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          grills with an                                                    12/31/2015
                          infrared cooking
                          system and 320
                          sq. in. of
                          grilling surface
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          7321.11.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|West Virginia Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                        
|                                                        
|West Virginia Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 14     | 688   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,491  | 6,043  | 9,408  | 18,078 | 28,311 | 19,226 | 23,146 | 34,296 | 31,748 | 34,020
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 32,335 | 39,160 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### In the Matter of David B., a Person Alleged to be in *886Need of Supervision.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The orders adjudicating respondent a person in need of supervision must be reversed. The admissions to the allegations of the petitions were made by the Law Guardian, not respondent personally *(see, Matter of Paul H.,*154 AD2d 943). Further, respondent was not advised by the court of his right to remain silent *(see, Matter of Patricia Ann R.,*154 AD2d 933). Moreover, the court erred when it did not ascertain, through allocution, that respondent admitted to the acts alleged in the petition, that he voluntarily waived his right to a fact-finding hearing *(see,*Family Ct Act § 741; *Matter of Paul H., supra,*at 943; *Matter of Mark S.,*144 AD2d 1010). We dismiss the petition in the first PINS proceeding since respondent’s period of probation has terminated and we see no benefit to be gained by remitting the matter for a new fact-finding determination *(see, Matter of Mark S., supra; Matter of Corey L.,*140 AD2d 609). We decline to dismiss the petition in the second PINS proceeding which resulted in respondent’s placement because it serves as the basis for the subsequent violation petition and petitions to extend respondent’s placement. The orders entered in these subsequent proceedings, however, must also be reversed because they were predicated upon the original order of placement in the second PINS proceeding which we find to be a nullity inasmuch as that order was based upon an invalid admission.

Further, we dismiss the petition filed February 20, 1990 requesting an extension of respondent’s placement as untimely because it was filed after "the original expiration date” of respondent’s placement *(see,*Family Ct Act § 756-a [a]). We remit the petitions filed July 13,1989 (extension of placement) and January 16, 1990 (violation of petition) for further proceedings.

Finally, we reject respondent’s claim that Berkshire Farms is not a proper petitioner *(see,*Family Ct Act § 756-a [a]). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Killeen, J.— PINS.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7918

JOHNNY MACK BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

INVISION TELECOM; S. L. PROFFITT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1143-R)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Brown v. Invision Telecom, No. CA-95-1143-R (W.D. Va. Oct.

25, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 464 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 464

 To prohibit United States contributions to the International Fund for 
                                Ireland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2011

 Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit United States contributions to the International Fund for 
                                Ireland.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
              INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND.

    (a) Prohibition.--No funds appropriated or otherwise available to 
any Federal department or agency may be obligated or expended to make 
United States contributions to the International Fund for Ireland.
    (b) Effective Date.--The prohibition contained in subsection (a) 
shall apply with respect to funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2012 and subsequent fiscal years.
                                 <all>
```
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 202 3

- 3 309 LT Case No

. 20 18

- C A

- 46895

____________________________ R OY L ERCHENFELD , Appellant,

v. E QUITY T RUST , G REEN P LUS I NVESTMENTS , LLC, D AVID R OSENTHAL SEP IRA, Appellee

.

_____________________________
On appe al fro m the Circuit Court for Brevard County. George T. Paul k, Judge.
David A. Bake r, of the Law Office of David A. B aker, P.A., Rockledg e, for Appellant.
Heather L. Griffiths of the Padgett Law Group, Tallahassee, for Appellee , Green Plus Investments, LLC, and Equity Trust f/b/o David Rosenthal SEP IRA. August 27, 2024
P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. E DWARDS , C.J., and L AMBERT and J A Y , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Utah Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Colorado (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Utah Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Colorado (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 69     | 161    | 171    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M A R C E L IN O C E JA -R O M E R O , a. k. a. M ar ce l i no C ej as -R om er o, a. k. a. Juan L e m os C ovarruvi a s , a . k. a . M ar c e l i no P eral es-F l o res, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10484 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 1 1 3 4 - SRB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona S us an R . B ol t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar c e l i no C e

j a - R om e r o appe a l s f

r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 57- m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rr e e n tryo f

ar e m o v e da lie n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . 

# FI LED DE C 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10484 2 P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), C ej a- R om er o’ s c ou nselhas f ile dab r ie f

s ta tin g th a t th e r e ar e n o g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of

r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d C e j a - R om e r o w i th the opportuni tyt o f

i l e apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a lbr i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f or ans w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 235 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. DI S MI S S E D.