alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.5


[LOGO] OPTION ONE                                               [LOGO] H&R BLOCK
       MORTGAGE

       an H&R BLOCK company

March 10, 2006

Steve Shapiro
Morgan Stanley-SPG Finance
1585 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10036

Michelle Wilkie
Morgan Stanley Legal Counsel
1221 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10020

Jeff Williams
Morgan Stanley-Servicing Oversight
5002 T-Rex Ave., suite 300
Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Peter Woroniecki
Morgan Stanley-RFPG
1221 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, New York 10020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
1761 East St. Andrew Place
Santa Ana, California 92705-4934
Attention: Trust Administration MS05H1
Inv#364


Re:   Annual Officer's Certificate

      Pursuant to Section 3.22 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated and
effective as of March 1, 2005, among Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I Inc., as
Depositor, Option One Mortgage Corporation, as Responsible Party and Servicer,
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as Servicer, HomeQ Servicing
Corporation, as Servicer, Decision One Mortgage Company LLC, as Responsible
Party, NC Capital Corporation, as Responsible Party, Accredited Home Lenders,
Inc., as Responsible Party, Ames Capital Corporation, as Responsible Party,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A as Custodian, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
as Trustee, (the "Servicing Agreement"), enclosed is the required officer's
certificate of compliance.

If you have any questions, please contact Elizabeth Nguyen at (949) 727-8226
or e-mail: Elizabeth.Nguyen@oomc.com


Option One Mortgage Corporation
6501 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618


www.optiononeonline.com

              3 Ada Irvine California 92618 949.704.3600 Fax 949.790.7514 [LOGO]

<page>

                           OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                        ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE SERVICER


      I, Fabiola Camperi, the duly appointed Chief Servicing Officer of Option
One Mortgage Corporation, the Servicer, hereby certify that (i) a review of the
activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended December 31, 2005 and
of performance under the Servicing Agreement, as defined in the cover letter,
has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based
on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Servicing Agreement during such year.

                                    By: /s/ Fabiola Camperi
                                        --------------------------
                                    Name: Fabiola Camperi
                                    Title: Chief Servicing Officer
                                    Date: February 28, 2006
AO 121 (Rev. 06/16) 

TO:

Register of Copyrights

U.S. Copyright Office

101 Independence Ave. S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION OR APPEAL

REGARDING A COPYRIGHT

In compliance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 508, you are hereby advised that a court action or appeal has been filed

on the following copyright(s):

COURT NAME AND LOCATION

G ACTION G APPEAL

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

COPYRIGHT

REGISTRATION NO. TITLE OF WORK AUTHOR OR WORK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above-entitled case, the following copyright(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

COPYRIGHT

REGISTRATION NO. TITLE OF WORK AUTHOR OF WORK

 1

 2

 3 .

In the above-entitled case, a final decision was rendered on the date entered below. A copy of the order or judgment

together with the written opinion, if any, of the court is attached.

COPY ATTACHED WRITTEN OPINION ATTACHED DATE RENDERED

G Order G Judgment G Yes G No

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

1) Upon initiation of action, 2) Upon filing of document adding copyright(s), 3) Upon termination of action,

mail copy to Register of Copyrights mail copy to Register of Copyrights mail copy to Register of Copyrights

DISTRIBUTION:

4) In the event of an appeal, forward copy to Appellate Court 5) Case File Copy

Case 1:20-cv-00332 Document 1-5 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 1

Western District of Texas

1:20-cv-332 3/26/2020

William Farrington Infowars, LLC

VA 2-172-501 William Farrington
|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History: Annual                                
|View History: Annual                                
|View History:                                       
|                                                    
|No chart available.                                 
|No chart available.                                 
|                                                    
|                                                    
|Western States Shale Production (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      | 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5056 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5056

           To extend the suspension of duty on Basic Blue 7.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To extend the suspension of duty on Basic Blue 7.

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

SECTION 1. BASIC BLUE 7.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.61 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Basic Blue 7) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 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. 17-1397

In re: CLINTON C. BARLOW, III,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: January 4, 2018 Decided: February 6, 2018

Before AGEE, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton C. Barlow, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clinton C. Barlow, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus relating to his habeas 

petition filed in the District of New Jersey, as well as a permanent filing injunction 

imposed on him by that court. We lack authority to grant mandamus relief in a case over 

which we would not have appellate jurisdiction. See In re Ojeda Rios, 863 F.2d 202, 204 

(2d Cir. 1988); cf. In re Va. Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357, 365 (4th Cir. 1976) 

(holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1651 “authorizes this court to issue writs of mandamus to 

district courts in the circuit”). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2304

ROBERT WILLIAMS FOX; JANE L. FOX, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 3074-AMD) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 18, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Fox, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J. Gilliss, County Attorney, Paul M. Mayhew, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert and Jane Fox appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Baltimore County in their action challenging the constitutionality of Baltimore County’s Code enforcement process based on an alleged violation of their due process rights. We affirm. This Court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 105 F.3d 188, 191 (4th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact given the parties’ burdens of proof at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We also deny the Foxes’ motion for a writ of prohibition. SeeGurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). 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
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

SSL SERVICES, LLC, Appellant

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee

______________________

2017

- 1951

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015

- 01754.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OHN T. B ATTAGLIA

, Fisch Sigler, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by A LAN M.

F ISCH

, M ATTHEW R. B ENNER

, R OY W ILLIAM S IGLER

.

T HEODORE M. F OSTER , Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by D AVID L.

M C C OMBS

, D EBRA J AN ECE M C C OMAS

, P RANAY K. P ATTANI ; T HOMAS B. K ING , Costa Mesa, CA.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE

, W ALLACH

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 19, 2010

p1116 

# Order

November 19, 2010

140618

KATHRYN HADDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140618 COA: 286474 Genesee CC: 07-087100-NO McDERMITT APARTMENTS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court

M ARKMAN , J. ( dissenting ).

The instant dispute—whether a landlord has breached his ob ligation to keep
common areas "fit for the use in tended by the parties," MCL 554.139(1)(a)—is governed by Allison v AEW Capital Mgmt , 481 Mich 419 (2008). I woul d grant leave to appeal to
determine whether there are reasonable grounds, as the Court of Appeals found, for distinguishing Allison in this case.

C ORRIGAN and Y OUNG , JJ., join the statement of M ARKMAN

, J.
#### G. M. FAULKNER et al., Movants, v. Kelly J. JAMESON, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 19, 1953.

Marvin Cornett, Stanford, for movants.

Cabell D. Francis, Stanford, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

-Mqtion for an appeal from judgment of the Lincoln Circuit Court dismissing mov-ant’s petition for $753.47. This appeal comes within the purview of KRS 21.080,, as amended by Chapter 24 of the Acts of' 1952. '

The facts, questions raised and authorities cited and law applicable have been carefully reviewed by this Court and no prejudicial error is found.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary   information   extracted  from  the  financial
statements  of the  December  31, 1997 Form 10-K of  Integrated  Resources  High
Equity Partners, Series 85 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,350,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  182,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,600,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,443,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,600,417
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,021,378
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,426,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,736,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,134,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,134,659
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0

<NET-INCOME>                                 2,134,659
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
         

</TABLE>
Case 5:20-mj-00522-RBF Document 3 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

NCS MULTISTAGE INC., Plaintiff

-vNINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC., Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6:20-CV-00277-ADA

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

On January 14, 2021, the Court entered its Claim Construction Order construing the terms 

“rupture disc is configured to disengage from sealing engagement when exposed to a pressure 

greater than a hydraulic pressure in the casing string” and “disengage the rupture disc from sealing 

engagement” by their plain and ordinary meaning. See ECF No. 56. On June 22, 2021, NCS sought 

further clarification from the Court on its constructions citing the parties’ “different view of what 

the plain and ordinary meaning of Terms 8 and 9 actually is.” ECF No. 87-1 at 4. To avoid any 

problems going forward and to comply with O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 

the Court clarifies the above constructions. 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

To assist with clarification, the parties narrowed the dispute to the term “disengage...from 

sealing engagement” and submitted three-page briefs on an expedited schedule to keep with the 

procedural schedule of the case. See ECF Nos. 87 and 89. Taking the parties briefs into 

consideration, the Court clarifies the term “disengage...from sealing engagement” to mean “before 

rupturing, move the rupture disc downhole relative to the region.”

The specification in the ’445 Patent teaches: (i) the rupture disc assembly requires less 

hydraulic pressure because the disc disengages at a lower pressure to accelerate to impact, (ii) the 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 90 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 2
2

combination of hydraulic pressure accelerating the disc and its impact ensure a complete rupture 

of the disc, (iii) the disengaging and accelerating of the disc to impact is more precise, whereas 

merely using hydraulic pressure may cause premature rupture of the disc due to point loading and 

imperfections in the disc during machining, (iv) when using hydraulic pressure alone each disc 

would have to be modified to suit a particular hydraulic pressure rating, which is difficult and time

consuming, and (v) when using hydraulic pressure alone the disc would have to be thinner, which 

is difficult to achieve and more likely to prematurely break. ‘445 Patent at 11:27-12:6. There is no 

mention in the ’445 Patent where the rupture disc ruptures while stationary. 

Because of the Court’s clarification of the term, an extension of the procedural schedule is 

appropriate to allow Defendant time to reevaluate its invalidity contentions and prepare expert 

reports to account for this clarified construction. The parties are instructed to meet and confer on

constructing a new schedule. If the Court’s assistance is needed, the parties are instructed to contact 

the clerk on this case to set a hearing. 

SIGNED this 7th day of July, 2021.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 90 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2

- 0 226

__________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. ORDER BRADLEY JAY HILLIOUS ,

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________ This Court granted Appellant’s request for a stay of this appeal on October 31, 2023, so the Flathead County District Court could rule upon Appellant’s Motion for New Trial and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. The Flathead County District Court denied the mot ion and supplemented the appellate record with additional district court filings on December 20, 2023. Appellant now requests the stay be lifted and a new briefing schedule set. Upon consideration of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Lift Stay of Appeal, wi th good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the stay in this matter is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve an opening brief on or before February 5, 2024.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2024

01/05/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0226
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Virginia Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Virginia Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 122    | 175    | 216    | 235    | 253    | 248    | 230    | 217   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 138    | 225    | 904    | 1,322  | 1,833  | 1,836  | 1,930  | 2,446  | 1,973  | 2,017 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,704  | 1,752  | 1,673  | 1,717  | 1,742  | 2,018  | 2,302  | 2,529  | 2,378  | 3,091 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3,215  | 2,832  | 2,579  | 2,373  | 2,800  | 2,496  | 2,447  | 2,741  | 2,554  | 2,298 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,951  | 2,094  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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