alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                                                             
|No chart available.                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                
|Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                                

|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
BRANDI K SToK1s, Esq. 2020JAN30 MII:i45 

Attorney at Law bra'ktokes.org - P0 Box 301916 Tel (512)206-0202 f 

Austin, Texas 78703 brandi.stokesgiiia1Lcoñi'- 

January 30, 2020 

District Judge Robert Pitman 

501 W5thSt#1100 

Austin, TX 78701 

Re: W.D. Tex. Case No. # 1 :20-C V-0089-RP; Disqualification and Voir Dire 

Dear Hon. Judge Pitman: 

Please forward the Motion to Disqualify District Judge Robert Pitman and Magistrate 

Judge Mark Lane to an appropriate member of the judiciary. While Judge Lane has made much 

ado over the fact that I am a licensed attorney, I am not licensed in federal court and do not know 

the disqualification procedure. When you forward the motion, please let the receiving judge know 

that one of the things that you have failed to do is to contact the International Committee of the 

Red Cross. 

While it is most disappointing that a judge with your education and background would 

continue to mishandle a case of this magnitude, my disappointment will not hinder my resolve to 

report you and your friend to proper authorities. It is my hope that you are both working with law 

enforcement. If the event that you are working with law enforcement, please understand that the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation is not a proper authority. Any agreement to provide you with 

immunity will not be considered valid in a court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is 

no investigative value in keeping this going. 

Even should you and your friend decide to disqualify yourselves without a hearing, it 

would be beneficial for both of you to sit for the voir dire that I have requested. Any cooperation 

would be appreciated and will also be reported to proper authorities with a request for leniency. 

Sincerely, 

Brandi K Stokes 

cc: Judith Gres DeBerry via CMRRR 

Case 1:20-cv-00089-RP Document 10 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 1
PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. RICK GLEN STRANDLOF, a/k/a Rick Duncan,
Defendant - Appellee.________

________________ THE AMERICAN LEGION; CHRISTOPHER GUZELIAN,
Amici Curiae. No. 10-1358 (D.C. No. 1:09-CR -00497-REB-1) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , BALDOCK , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before the court following receipt of the appellant’s status report, and in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S.___, (2012)(No. 11-210). In light of that decision, we vacate both the opinion and the judgment issued on Ja nuary 27, 2012. The July 16, 2010 orde r of the district court dismissing the amended information and char ges against Mr. Strandlof is affirmed. See United States v. Strandlof , 746 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (D. Co lo. 2010). On February 2, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 2, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 2012, we issued an order st aying issuance of the mandate. We now lift that stay, and
issue this order as the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
DROPBOX INC

vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00251-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DISCOVERY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoomoom on April 14, 2022 at 01:30 PM.

set

IT 13th day of April, 2022.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 125 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 12, 2008
    
    /s/ Carl J. GrivnerCarl J. GrivnerChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

ECOFACTOR, INC., Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6:20-CV-00075-ADA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

The Court considers Google Inc.’s (“Google”) motion to continue the January 31, 2022

trial by eight weeks. Dkt. No. 174. EcoFactor, Inc. (“EcoFactor”) opposes the continuance. Dkt. 

No. 175.

Google seeks a continuance because the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has rapidly spread 

throughout the community. This spread will prevent six of Google’s nine witnesses from testifying 

in person, but the witnesses can still testify remotely. Dkt. No. 174 at 2. Google has no evidence 

that the Omicron variant will die down in eight weeks. 

The parties have already agreed to COVID-19 protections. Dkt. No. 169 at 25, 31, 38. 

These agreements include a prohibition against using COVID-19 related conditions against 

witnesses and specifically prevent EcoFactor from holding video witness testimony against 

Google. Id. at 31. Thus, any prejudice against Google is mitigated. 

Google’s motion to continue the trial is DENIED.

SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2022.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 176 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 1
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Michigan Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Michigan Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Acquisitions (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                                                                                                                            | 676    | 2      | 72     | 392    | 15     | 91     | 27     | 1,259  | 10     | 17    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 725    | 410    | 0      | 11     | 8      | 0      | 0      | 54     | 0      | 278   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 206    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 4890 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4890

    To reduce temporarily the duty on ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene 
                           copolymer (ETFE).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reduce temporarily the duty on ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene 
                           copolymer (ETFE).

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

SECTION 1. ETHYLENE/TETRAFLUOROETHYLENE COPOLYMER (ETFE).

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

``     9902.01.00        Ethylene/           3.5%            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          tetrafluoroethyle                                                 12/31/2015
                          ne copolymer
                          (ETFE) (CAS No.
                          68258-85-5)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3904.69.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2077]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Public Availability of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board FY 
2010 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board).

ACTION: Notice of public availability of FY 2010 Service Contract 
Inventories.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the Board is 
publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the 
FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information 
on service contract actions over $25,000 made in FY 2010. The 
information is organized by function to show how contracted resources 
are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed 
in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of 
Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 
OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf. The Board has posted its inventory and a summary 
of the inventory on the Board's homepage at the following link: http://www.dnfsb.gov/pub_docs/index.php.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Mark Welch at 202-694-7043 or 
markw@dnfsb.gov.

    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Debra Richardson,
Deputy General Manager, Office of the General Manager.
[FR Doc. 2011-2077 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Julian Tadeo Castro-Gutierrez

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CR-86-RP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The District Court referred this case to the United States Magistrate 

Judge for the taking of the defendant’s felony guilty plea and for his allocution pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

On March 5, 2020, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. The 

undersigned addressed the defendant personally in open court, informed him of the admonishments 

under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that he understood 

those admonishments. The defendant pled guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry into the United 

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Magistrate Judge finds the following:

1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, consented to enter this guilty plea before 

the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;

2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and possible 

penalties;

3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights, understands that his

constitutional and statutory rights can be waived, and understands the meaning and 

effect of the waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights;
4. The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

5. The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

6. There is a factual basis for this plea. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the defendant’s guilty 

plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilt 

against him.

WARNING

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds 

of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on March 5, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
**Exhibit31.06**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Jimmy E. Addison,certify that:

 

1.                         Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of SCANA Corporation;

 

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

 

 
| Date: July 2, 2009 |   |                                               |
|--------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|               |   | /s/Jimmy E. Addison                                |
|               |   | Jimmy E. Addison                                   |
|               |   | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40379 Conference Calendar

__________________ RICHARD BRENTON TOBIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TERRY BROWN, District Attorney, Polk County; BILLY RAY NELSON, Sheriff for the County of Polk, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 9:94-CV-161

- - - - - - - - - - August 24, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard Brenton Tobias appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district court may dismiss a complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it determines that it is frivolous; i.e., if the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A districtNo. 95-40379 -2-
court's § 1915 dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez , 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). Prosecutors are immune from § 1983 suits for acts that are within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Prosecutorial immunity has been extended to a prosecutor's actions in initiating, investigating, and pursuing a criminal prosecution. McGruder v. Necaise , 733 F.2d 1146, 1148 (5th Cir. 1984). Quasi-judicial conduct, such as a prosecutor's decision whether to file criminal charges, is also immune. Oliver v. Collins , 904 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990). A sheriff is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity "if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law." See King v. Chide , 974 F.2d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 1992). The first step in the analysis of a qualified immunity defense is to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a constitutional violation. Id . In a § 1983 suit, the foundation of that first step is the principle that liability must arise out of a violation of a constitutionally protected right, not merely out of tort law. Id . Tobias does not possess a constitutional right to have an individual criminally prosecuted. See Oliver v. Collins , 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, Tobias's complaint lacked a basis in law, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing it as frivolous. The district court's warning that additional frivolous suits could result in sanctions applies as well to theNo. 95-40379 -3- filing of frivolous appeals. See e.g. , Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988); Clark v. Green , 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED.