alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|California State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|California State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 32    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10     | 24     | 15     | 26     | 11     | 40     | 26     | 47     | 44     | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 94     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### THOMAS v. STATE.

No. 23719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1947.

No attorney for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., Kellis Daniel, and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Attys., all of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of robbery by assault, the indictment further alleged two former convictions of felonies less than capital. He was convicted and given a sentence of confinement in the State Penitentiary for Life.

The record as brought forward contains no bills of exceptions, nor are there any objections or exceptions to the charge of the court. The statement of facts was not approved by the Judge of Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, and cannot be considered.

We find no error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Karen Kantor, Appellant, v Carol Watson, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on or about August 16, 1989, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing seven of plaintiff’s eight causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

According to the complaint, plaintiff allegedly entered into an oral agreement with defendant to develop, produce, and market a screenplay based upon the defendant’s childhood experiences during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which defendant allegedly breached by selling the rights to her life story to a third party not joined in this action. The IAS court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss seven of the eight causes of action, on the ground that the alleged oral agreement, the terms of which are incapable of performance within one year of the making thereof, was barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). Plaintiff’s second cause of action for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit was left standing and no appeal was taken from this aspect of the order.

Dismissal of the various causes of action was proper. The *298payments to plaintiff contemplated under the alleged agreement clearly could not be accomplished within one year, as plaintiff was to share any compensation received from the exploitation of defendant’s screenplay. Nor did plaintiff plead any facts indicating partial performance unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement so as to give rise to an estoppel. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
#### LOGAN v. STATE.

No. 24589.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

Garland Casebier, Fort Stockton, for ap-llant.

J.. W. Swarts, - County Attorney, Van Horn, George P. Blackburn, State’s -Atty., Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge..

The appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault, with a 'fine of $25.

The sole question necessary to be dis'cussed 1⁄8 this case.is whether or not’ appellant’s, motion to quash the jury panel in the county court should have been sustained. The judge of the County Court of Culberson County for the preceding eighteen years did not feel it necessary to appoint a jury commission as provided by Article 2109, R.C.S. When the present county judge came into office in January 1949, no jury had been drawn for the six months term of court to follow. On the 16th day of June this case was called for trial and the motion filed to quash the jury panel. This is denominated a second motion to quash. The grounds therefor set out that the jury commission drawing the jury before them, was not appointed according to law.

It appears that about the latter part of February a jury commission was appointed who selected 20 men for service and that they appeared in court, in response to' the summons, "on the 13th day ■ of April following! Oyer the objections of defendant’s counsel, the county judge "at that time orally dismissed all of the jury panel except three, whom he swore in as jury commissioners. Following the court’s instruction, they selected the jury panel from which the jury was selected in the instant case. It is set out and shown by the record, without .dispute, that -the failure to have a .jury commission-.appointed in accordance with the statute, and the selection of a jury panel by them, was not unintentional but was the willful act and judgment of the county judge. The second motion to , quash the panel was overruled and defendant was forced to select a jury from such panel.

It will not be necessary to give an extended discussion of the question thus pre*122sented in the case now before us. The identical question was fully discussed in Clark v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 107, 134 S.W.2d page 676, and re-affirmed in Newberry v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 186, 143 S.W.2d 962 and Fann v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 143 S.W.2d 963. The opinions of this court on the subject are consistent. Neither the county judge nor this court has the power to change statutory law.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing cases, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
#### Click Model Management, Inc., Appellant, v Rachel Williams et al., Defendants, and Christy Turlington, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered April 23, 1990, which, *inter alia,*
      *280granted defendant Turlington’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Click Model Management, Inc. represented Rachel Williams, an internationally known model, pursuant to a written management agreement. In 1987, Williams left Click and joined Ford Models, Inc., a competing agency. Click alleges that Christy Turlington, also an internationally known model, tortiously interfered with Click’s contract with Williams.

In order to establish a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relations, Click was required to allege and prove: (1) the existence of a valid contract between Click and Williams; (2) Turlington’s knowledge of that contract; (3) Turlington’s intentional procuring of the breach of that contract; and (4) damages *(Israel v Wood Dolson Co.,*1 NY2d 116, 120). We find insufficient evidence in the record to raise a factual question as to whether Turlington intentionally procured the breach of contract, assuming for purposes of this appeal that the contract between Click and Williams was in fact breached. On one occasion when Williams and Turlington were on a fashion photography shoot in Morocco, Williams complained to Turlington about her dissatisfaction with Click’s services, the commissions she paid to Click, and the nature of her assignments, and Turlington told Williams "You ought to come over to Ford.” On a later occasion, at a Calvin Klein show in New York, Turlington telephoned Abel Rapp, a Ford employee, told him that Williams wanted to make an appointment to speak to someone at Ford, and then gave the phone to Williams. Activities of this type clearly do not evince an intent on defendant’s part to procure a breach of contract. The most that can be said is that defendant intended to accommodate her friend, who was already clearly dissatisfied with Click’s services. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                               
|                                                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                                                         
|                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                            
|Mississippi Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (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      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofCFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof CDRV Investors, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Jack L. Wyszomierski, as Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of his knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| /s/  JACK  L. WYSZOMIERSKI                           |     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Name: Jack L. Wyszomierski                                     |     |
| *Title: Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer* | * * |
| Date: March 31, 2006                                      |     |

 

----
JON LANCE CARSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1537

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed June 13, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Hulsey, III , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel R. Roseboom, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Mogavero, Jr., J.), rendered February 26, 1990, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant’s admitted violations of the terms and conditions of his probation included a violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 involving the torturing of animals, failure to appear for scheduled evaluations for substance abuse and for incarceration on a designated weekend. Under these circum*785stances, County Court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing defendant to a term of imprisonment of *IV2*to *4V2*years on his conviction for burglary in the third degree. The sentence was authorized by statute and was less than the maximum that could have been imposed *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [2], [3]; *People v Nazarian,*150 AD2d 923, *lv denied*74 NY2d 744). However, the lA-to-ÍA-year sentence imposed on the conviction for criminal mischief in the third degree, a class E felony, was beyond the scope of imprisonment provided by statute and was therefore illegal *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [2], [3]). Nevertheless, since the sentence imposed for this crime is concurrent with the burglary conviction, there is no reason to reduce the sentence below a term of *IV3*to 4 years, the most severe sentence permitted *(see, People v Johnson,*140 AD2d 257, *lv denied*72 NY2d 920; *People v Lanier,*114 AD2d 339, *lv denied*67 NY2d 653).

Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence for the conviction of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree to a term of imprisonment of 1XA to 4 years, and, as so modified, affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2157 

AN ACT 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National Forest, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2157 EH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES FOR INYO NATIONAL FOREST 

2 LAND EXCHANGE. 

3 (a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT LANDS OUTSIDE

4 BOUNDARIES OF INYO NATIONAL FOREST.—In any land 

5 exchange involving the conveyance of certain National 

6 Forest System land located within the boundaries of Inyo 

7 National Forest in California, as shown on the map titled 

8 ‘‘Federal Parcel’’ and dated June 2011, the Secretary of 

9 Agriculture may accept for acquisition in the exchange 

10 certain non-Federal lands in California lying outside the 

11 boundaries of Inyo National Forest, as shown on the maps 

12 titled ‘‘DWP Parcel – Interagency Visitor Center Parcel’’ 

13 and ‘‘DWP Parcel – Town of Bishop Parcel’’ and dated 

14 June 2011, if the Secretary determines that acquisition 

15 of the non-Federal lands is desirable for National Forest 

16 System purposes. 

17 (b) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT; USE.—In an ex18 change described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Agri19 culture may accept a cash equalization payment in excess 

20 of 25 percent. Any such cash equalization payment shall 

21 be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the 

22 United States established by Public Law 90–171 (com23 monly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a) and shall 

24 be made available to the Secretary for the acquisition of 

25 land for addition to the National Forest System. 
3 

•HR 2157 EH

1 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec2 tion shall be construed to grant the Secretary of Agri3 culture new land exchange authority. This section modifies 

4 the use of land exchange authorities already available to 

5 the Secretary as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2157 

AN ACT 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain NaForest, and for other purposes. tional Forest System lands in the Inyo National
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 467 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction 

for the travel expenses of a taxpayer’s spouse who accompanies the 

taxpayer on business travel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Ms. BERKLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 

the deduction for the travel expenses of a taxpayer’s 

spouse who accompanies the taxpayer on business travel. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EX4 PENSES OF SPOUSE, ETC. ACCOMPANYING 

5 TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS TRAVEL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (m) of section 274 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 

8 limitations on travel expenses) is amended by striking 

9 paragraph (3). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 467 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|New Mexico Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        
|                                                        
|New Mexico Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 39,984 | 39,870 | 23,196 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofCFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of CDRV Investors, Inc. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jack L. Wyszomierski, asExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ JACK  L. WYSZOMIERSKI                                      |     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Name: Jack L. Wyszomierski                                     |     |
| *Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* | * * |
| Date: March 30, 2007                                      |     |

 

----