alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                               
|                                                                                                            
|Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                            
|Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (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                                                                                                                            | 388    | 381    | 376    | 245    | 290    | 127    | 404    | 182    | 147    | 46    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 72     | 608    | 54     | 89     | 220    | 47     | 111    | 46     | 33     | 38    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 47     | 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

ISRAEL HERRERA,

 Defendant.

6:20-CR-00067-ADA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 362)

Came now for consideration is Defendant Israel Herrera’s February 23, 2022, Motion for 

Expedited Reconsideration of Sentence. ECF No. 362. Defendant was sentenced on February 9, 

2022, to 120 months imprisonment, with four years of supervised release to follow for Conspiracy 

to Possess With Intent to Distribute and Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, a Schedule 

II Controlled Substance. ECF No. 358. Defendant asks this Court to reconsider her sentence 

imposed so this Court can consider Defendant’s objections to the Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) 

that were waived at sentencing. ECF No. 362. Defendant claims those objections were not 

knowingly and intelligently waived. Id. She asks for a downward departure based on those 

objections. Id.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 gives a district court authority to correct a sentence 

within 14 days of sentencing if the sentence resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear 

error. FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a). A court’s ability to correct is a “narrow authority” which “extends 

solely to cases in which an obvious error or mistake has occurred in the sentence, that is, errors 

which would almost certainly result in a remand of the case to the trial court for further action.”

United States v. Jackson, 798 Fed. Appx. 793, 799 (citing United States v. Olarte-Rojas, 820 F.3d 

798, 803-04 (5th Cir. 2016)). 

Case 6:20-cr-00067-ADA Document 370 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 2
Here, there was no arithmetical or technical error in the calculation of Ms. Herrera’s 

sentence. To the extent that she argues that her lack of knowing and intelligent waiver constitutes 

clear error, this Court disagrees. Whether a defendant may have knowingly and intelligently agreed 

to the relevant conduct in a PSR is not grounds for reconsideration. See United States v. Vineyard, 

539 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 2008) (finding that rule 35 did not apply). The Court finds that there 

was no clear error in Defendant’s sentencing. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Reconsideration of Sentence

(ECF No. 362) is DENIED. 

SIGNED this 8th day of April, 2022.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cr-00067-ADA Document 370 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 2
#### CONWAY v. STATE.

No. 26180.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 21, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

■George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry . area; the punishment, fifteen days in jail and a fine of $400.

The record contains no notice of appeal, and this Court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

I, McClellan Harris III, Chief Financial Officer of American States Water
Company and Southern California Water Company (the Registrant), do hereby
certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), that, to my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 result of operations of the
Registrant.                                                                                                                  

/s/ McClellan Harris III

McClellan Harris III
Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2003

66
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30788 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DUSTIN CHERAMIE, also known as Dustin Cole Cheramie, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CR-340-1

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dustin Cheramie appeals from his conviction of possession, receipt, and transportation of child pornography. Cheramie contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for transporting child pornography and therefore requests that this count be set aside. He argues that file sharing programs like the one he used differ from other uses of the Internet in that they do not require repeated volitional acts on the part of the user. Because the file sharing process does not require acts of volition, Cheramie suggests, a defendant whoNo. 05-30788 -2- has engaged in file sharing has not knowingly transmitted pornography. We need not address the distinctions between file sharing programs and other forms of Internet usage. The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Cheramie knew that he was transmitting child pornography. See United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. , 513 U.S. 64, 69-78 (1994). The Government presented evidence that Cheramie saved images to different files after receiving them; those images had names clearly indicating that they were child pornography; and he confessed to having transmitted images to other individuals. We will not disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. United States v. MolinarApodaca , 889 F.2d 1417, 1423 (5th Cir. 1979).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 14, 2010
    /s/ CARY B. WOODCary B. Wood, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 14, 2010
    /s/ GREGORY A. SLOMEGregory A. Slome, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Boswell, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not err in admitting the typewritten letters addressed to defendant. They did not constitute inadmissible hearsay because they were admitted for the limited purpose of linking defendant to the searched apartment and not for the truth of their contents *(see, State v Porter,*344 So 2d 1031, 1035 [La]). The court erred, however, in admitting the handwritten note, purportedly written by defendant, because it was not properly authenticated *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 635 [Prince 10th ed]). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we deem the error harmless because there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for the error *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

Furthermore, the facts enumerated in the affidavit in support of the search warrant were sufficient for its issuance under both prongs of the *Aguilar-Spinelli*rule *(see, Aguilar v Texas,*378 US 108; *Spinelli v United States,*393 US 410; *see also, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417).

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that reversal is required because the trial court admitted evidence that the police were present at the multiple dwelling occupied by defendant, and others, to execute a search warrant. Under the *929circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that admission of the evidence improperly conveyed to the jury the suggestion that criminal evidence existed in defendant’s home and that defendant had committed uncharged crimes prior to the execution of the warrant *(cf., People v Hudy,*73 NY2d 40, 54-55). Moreover, defendant declined to accept the trial court’s offer to give a curative instruction. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 98-50445 Summary Calendar

RHONDA FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RATLIFF, Officer, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-97-CV-405

--------------------- October 13, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rhonda Fleming, Texas prisoner #598829, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of her civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim under § 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). By moving for IFP, Fleming is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because her appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Fleming’s complaint alleged that her hands were twisted so forcefully that she continued to suffer from pain in her wristsNo. 98-50445 - 2 -

** Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). over 71⁄2 months after the incident. Her allegations, if true, raise a valid excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Fleming’s complaint for failure to state a claim under § 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), on the ground that her physical injuries were de minimis

. “[I]n reversing the trial court in cases where the merits are so intertwined with the certification decision as to constitute the same issue, the prior expedient practice of determining the merits of the appeal as well as the appropriateness of IFP status will remain an available appellate disposition.” Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202. Accordingly, Fleming’s motion for IFP is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment is VACATED, the district court’s certification decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings, including in the court’s discretion, a Spears ** hearing or other appropriate factual development. IFP GRANTED. JUDGMENT VACATED. CERTIFICATION VACATED. CASE REMANDED.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-19-00277-CR 

________________________

DALLAS JAMES MOORE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 72,940-D-CR; Honorable David L. Gleason, Presiding 

 

August 27, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant, Dallas James Moore, was 

convicted of escape from custody1 and sentenced to forty years confinement. The trial 

court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal reflects that Appellant’s case is a plea1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.06(c) (West 2016). Appellant pleaded “true” to two felony 

enhancements, making the offense punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of not more than ninetynine years or less than twenty-five years. Id. at § 12.42(d) (West 2019). 
2

bargained case with no right of appeal and that Appellant waived the right of appeal. The 

certification notwithstanding, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, pro se, challenging his

conviction.

We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal “if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of 

the record.” By letter dated August 2, 2019, this court notified Appellant of the 

consequences of the trial court’s certification and invited him to file an amended 

certification showing a right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the 

appeal by August 16. To date, Appellant has not filed an amended certification reflecting 

a right of appeal or a response establishing good cause for continuing this appeal.

Consequently, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal based on the 

certification signed by the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
|    |                                                                                                              |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|              |
|--------------|
|              |  |
|         |   |
| May 25, 2017 |   /s/Jimmy E. Addison |
|         |   Jimmy E. Addison |
|         |   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                      
|Texas State Offshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                      
|Texas State Offshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (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                                                                                                                            | 54     | 6      | 2      | 23     | 126    | 26     | 69     | 0      | 25     | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 20     | 2      | 23     | 6      | 0      | 3      | 15     | 0      | 0      | 2     
|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
. . 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 2&2OAPR 13 P11 3:2Le 

Manned Parentflood center tor uioice et ai 

1:2O-cv-0032-LY 

-vs- Case No. 

Greg Abbott, et al. 

ORDER 

BE IT REMEMBERED on this the .L II day of 20w, there 

was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by 

Joseph Scott St. John ("Applicant"), counsel for 

the Court, having reviewed the motion, enters the following order: 

State of Louisiana and 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant 

may appear on behalf of State of Louisiana in the above case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if Applicant has not already done so, shall, 

in compliance with Local Court Rule AT-l(f)(2), immediately tender the amount of $100.00, 

made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and 

Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall 

register as a filing user within 10 days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant's ProHac Vice status shall not become effective 

until Applicant has complied with all provisions of this Order. 

SIGNED this the day of____________________ 20 _ U2 

Case 1:20-cv-00323-LY Document 73 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:20-cv-00106-FM Document 68 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6906

RITCHIE CORDELL HOPE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-97-646-3-MU)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ritchie Cordell Hope, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ritchie Cordell Hope seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 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. Hope v. North Carolina, No.

CA-97-646-3-MU (W.D.N.C. June 4, 1998); see also Brown v. Angelone,

150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). We deny Hope’s motion for appointment

of counsel. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC EUGENE SMALL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 345 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in reversing the PCRA court’s grant of a new trial based on after

- discovered evidence by finding that Tyson’s testimony was merely cumulative and corroborative of the exculpatory evidence presented at Petitioner’s trial? M.D. Appeal Dkt. 63 MAP 2017