alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Montana Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 112    | 120    | 45    
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 72     | 102    | 72     | 58     | 54     | 65     | 60     | 57     | 48     | 91    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 34     | 20     | 22     | 29     | 26     | 133    | 59     | 99     | 119    | 98    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 130    | 82     | 40     | 46     | 73     | 63     | 65     | 92     | 41     | 132   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 103    | 43     | 31     | 113    | 89     | 33     | 89     | 73     | 51     | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 156    | 106    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves Adjustments (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | -1     | 0      | 0      | 1,167  | -645   | 88     | 757    | 3      | -28    | 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
#### MADKINS v. STATE.

No. 25360.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1951.

Robert F. Salmon, Linden, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

For the wilful burning of his insured automobile, appellant has been convicted and assessed a penalty of two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, in the absence of which the bills of exception cannot be appraised.

It is contended that there is no allegation of venue in the indictment — that is, the place where the offense was alleged to have been committed.

Without setting out the indictment, it is concluded that the words, “then and there,” which are words of reference (Branch’s P. C., Sec. 502), sufficiently allege venue and show that the offense was alleged to have been committed in Cass County, Texas. We are unable to perceive any fundamental defect in the indictment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
NO. 07-03-0506-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 16, 2003

______________________________

IN RE: BETTY ANN NEWBY,

Relator

_______________________________

Original Proceeding — Memorandum Opinion

________________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Pending before the court is the petition of Betty Ann Newby for a writ of mandamus.

She asks this court to set aside an order of the Hon. Lee Waters, 223rd District Court,

denying her motion to recuse the Hon. Jack Young, who was assigned to sit in the 84th

District Court. She also requests that we nullify Judge Young’s orders denying her plea to

the jurisdiction of the court and granting the motion of Moser Investment to foreclose on

property of the estate of George Ralph Newby, Jr. We deny the petition.

Each request of Newby is founded upon the contention that Judge Waters was

prohibited from deciding her motion to recuse Judge Young. According to Newby, he was

so prohibited because she objected to the assignment, by the regional administrative

judge, of Judge Waters to hear the motion. And, because Judge Waters was barred from

ruling on the motion, his order denying it as well as the orders issued by Judge Young
1

To the extent Newby suggests that Judge W aters was also subject to recusal because he was not

elected by the voters of Hutchinson County, Texas, we note that statute permits the assignm ent of active

judges to sit in districts other than those for which they were elected. TEX. GOV. CODE ANN. §§74.052 (Vernon

1998) & 74.054 (Vernon Supp. 2004). So, this suggestion is also baseless.

2

Because we deny the petition for writ of m andamus, Newby’s motions to recuse the Hon. John T.

Boyd, sitting by assignment in this court, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot.

2

thereafter (i.e. those denying the plea to the jurisdiction of the court and allowing the

foreclosure) were purportedly void. We disagree.

Newby acknowledges, in her petition, that Judge Waters is a duly elected, active

district court judge. Because he is, his assignment to hear the motion to recuse is not

subject to objection. TEX. GOV. CODE ANN. §74.053(e) (Vernon Supp. 2004) (stating that

an “active judge assigned under this chapter is not subject to an objection”). Accordingly,

the foundation underlying each of her arguments is non-existent, and they must fail.1

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.2 

Brian Quinn

 Justice
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24709]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Application for the Review of 
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States; DD 
Form 293; OMB Number 0704-0004.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 8,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 8,000.
    Average Burden Per Response: 45 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.
    Needs and Uses: Former members of the Armed Forces who received an 
administrative discharge have the right to appeal the characterization 
or reason for separation. Title 10 of the U.S.C., Section 1553, and DoD 
Directive 1332.28 established a Board of Review consisting of five 
members to review appeals of former members of the Armed Forces. The DD 
Form 293, ``Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States,'' provides the respondent a vehicle 
to present to the Board their reasons/justifications for a discharge 
upgrade as well as providing the Services the basic data needed to 
process the appeal.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-24709 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5601-10-M
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 April 2006

(2006/C 89/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. LARRY GENE THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:91-cr-00052-GCM-3; 5:07-cv-00120-GCM) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Gene Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry Gene Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s motion to vacate the district court’s decision, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report of SIFCO Industries, Inc. (Company) on Form 10-Q/A
for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (Report), I, Frank A. Cappello, Vice
President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Frank A. CappelloFrank A. CappelloVice
President  Finance andChief Financial OfficerMay 23, 2005
 This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q/A pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed
filed by SIFCO Industries, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that SIFCO Industries, Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SIFCO
Industries, Inc. and will be retained by SIFCO Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC. 

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTEL CORPORATION

Defendant.

C.A. No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER

After considering ParkerVision’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 133), the parties’ 

respective position statements submitted to the Court by email on May 10, 2022, and oral 

arguments during a hearing held on June 21, 2022, the Court orders the following:

IT IS ORDERED THAT Intel’s motion to strike ParkerVision’s Final Infringement 

Contentions is DENIED. Intel shall be permitted two additional hours of deposition testimony 

with Mr. David Sorrells and two additional hours of deposition testimony with one other 

inventor of the patents-in-suit. ParkerVision shall use reasonable efforts to have third-party 

Mr. Robert Cook testify as the second inventor deponent. The subject matter of the depositions 

shall be limited to topics related to ParkerVision’s infringement contentions. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ParkerVision’s motion for leave to amend (ECF 

No. 133) is GRANTED. Exhibit A to ParkerVision’s motion for leave to amend shall be the 

operative Complaint, but shall remain under seal. ParkerVision is ordered to file a redacted 

version of its Third Amended Complaint once the dispute regarding the appropriate scope of 

redactions is resolved. With regard to ParkerVision's willful infringement allegations in the 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 145 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 2
Third Amended Complaint, Intel shall be permitted to take the deposition of two 30(b)(1) 

witnesses (up to ten hours total), 2 additional interrogatories, and up to 10 additional RFAs. 

ParkerVision shall use reasonable efforts to have third-parties Mr. John Stuckey and Mr. Jeff 

Leach testify. The subject matter of the depositions, interrogatory and RFAs shall be limited 

to ParkerVision's willfulness allegations.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2022.

HON. ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 145 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 2
|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History:                                                  
|                                                               
|U.S. Dry Natural Gas Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                               
|                                                               
|U.S. Dry Natural Gas 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                                                                                                                            | 20,378 | 11,380 | 10,166 | 10,174 | 11,106 | 9,130  | 22,850 | 14,740 | 7,603  | 4,109 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10,153 | 43,186 | 9,318  | 9,558  | 20,373 | 14,016 | 18,411 | 23,718 | 23,817 | 17,198
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 19,201 | 9,485  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

TO:

G Trademarks or

6:20-cv-00176

DOCKET NO.

PLAINTIFF

ARCIMOTO, INC., AYRO, INC.,

HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1 US 8,985,255 3/24/2015 Arcimoto, Inc.

2

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1

2

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered orjudgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

DATE

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK

2/25/2021

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

Mail Stop 8

Director ofthe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, Waco Division on the following

G✔ Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DATE FILED

3/6/2020

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Texas, Waco Division

DEFENDANT

Case 6:20-cv-00176-ADA Document 58 Filed 02/25/21 Page 1 of 1
In accordance with Section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on June 25, 1999, applicable to workers of Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Components Division, Departments 133, 134, 136, 400, 630, 420, 240, 261 and 266, Saugerties, New York. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38922).                

                    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations occurred at Philips Components Division, Department 430 of Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Saugerties, New York. The workers are engaged in the production of soft ferrites (“back end”—                    *i.e.*                     grinding, toroids and inspect and pack, and related support departments).                

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Components Division who were adversely affected by the shift in production to Mexico.

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to cover the workers of Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Components Division, Department 430, Saugerties, New York.

The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-03188 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Components Division, Departments 133, 134, 136, 400, 630, 420, 240, 261, 266 and 430, Saugerties, New York who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 19, 1998 through June 25, 2001 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of January, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-2498  Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M