alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)         
|View History: Annual                                   
|View History: Annual                                   
|View History:                                          
|                                                       
|Pennsylvania Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                       
|                                                       
|Pennsylvania Shale 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 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------- | -------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |         |        |        |        |        |        | 96     | 88      | 3,790  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10,708 | 23,581  | 32,681 | 44,325 | 56,210 | 53,484 | 60,979 | 89,478 | 103,388 | 105,394
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 96,699 | 105,586 |        |        |        |        |        |        |         |        
|- = 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
Pursuant to the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in 

Civil and Criminal Cases, the following pleading has been filed. However, it is 

deficient in the area(s) checked below. Please correct the deficiency(ies), as 

noted below, and re-file document IMMEDIATELY. When re-filing document, 

other than a motion, please ensure you add ‘corrected’ to the docket text. If 

the document you are re-filing is a motion, select ‘corrected’ from the dropdown list. 

If an erroneous filing results in failure to meet a deadline, you will need 

to seek relief, for any default, from the presiding judge. 

(1) Other

 Remarks: Please remove the word "proposed" from the proposed Order.

United States District Court

Western District of Texas

Waco

Deficiency Notice

To:

From:

Date:

Re:

Devlin, Timothy

Court Operations Department, Western District of Texas

Monday, July 18, 2022

06:20-CV-00251-ADA / Doc # 151 / Filed On: 07/18/2022 10:01 AM CST

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 152 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 1
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SHELDON LARRY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-2474 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 25, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Sheldon Larry, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
Denied as Moot and Opinion Filed October 14, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-16-01074-CV No. 05-16-01075-CV No. 05-16-01076-CV No. 05-16-01077-CV IN RE: LARRY B. JOHNSON, Relator Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F-08-11151-H, F-08-11221-H, F-09-00661-H, and F-09-00662-H 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill Before the Court is relator’s September 9, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus in which

relator contends the trial court failed to ac t on his motion for DNA testing. On September 30, 2016, the trial court issued its no tification of pro se motion fo r post-conviction DNA testing and appointment of counsel in accordance with ar ticle 64.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the issues pr esented in this petition are moot. See In re Williams , 05-12- 00485-CV, 2012 WL 1595080, at *1 (Te x. App.—Dallas May 7, 2012, no pet.). Accordingly, we

DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

161074F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 191 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of Washington; Notice of Decision on Application for 
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 00-024. Applicant: University of Washington, 
Seattle, WA 98195-6100. Instrument: Laser Microdissection System. 
Manufacturer: P.A.L.M. Mikrolaser Technologie, Germany. Intended Use: 
See notice at 65 FR 51797, August 25, 2000.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) Dissection 
and catapulting of live cells directly into microcentrifuge tubes for 
analysis without contamination, (2) high quality microscope optics, (3) 
selective destruction of unwanted cellular material and (4) 
microdissection of any shape cell or tissue area. The National 
Institutes of Health advises in its memorandum of August 10, 2000 that 
(1) these capabilities are pertinent to the applicant's intended 
purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or apparatus of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument for the 
applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-25272 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
|                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                              
|View History:                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                  
|New Mexico - West Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                  
|New Mexico - West Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 225    | 165    | 192    | 818   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 178    | 184    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4030

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Patrick Jefferson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 2001 Filed: April 26, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Patrick Jefferson was convicted of conspiring to distribute and/or possess with intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and/or heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). The District Court 1 sentenced him to 150 months imprisonment and 8 years supervisedrelease. On appeal, his counsel raises three issues in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Jefferson raises two issues pro se.-2-

We reject seriatim the issues raised by Jefferson and his counsel. First, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support Jefferson’s conviction. See United States
v. Grimaldo , 214 F.3d 967, 975 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 330 (2000) and 121 S. Ct. 784 (2001). Second, the prosecutor adequately articulated a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike against an African-American venireperson. See Pur kett v. Elem , 514 U.S. 765, 767-69 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the District Court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with the offense. See Brown v. United States , 169 F.3d 531, 532-33 (8th Cir. 1999). Fourth, Jefferson’s retrial, after a hung jury in his first trial, was not barred by double jeopardy. See Lo ckhart v. Nelson , 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988). Finally, Jefferson's sentence does not violate App rendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado , 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 600 (2000).
We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7164

GARY LEWIS MILLER,

Plaintiff- Appellant,

versus

PASQUOTANK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; JAMES B.

HUNT, JR., Governor; DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Director of Prisons; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-99-394-5-F)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Lewis Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Lewis Miller appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Miller v. Pasquotank Correctional Institution,

No. CA-99-394-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 1999). We deny Miller’s motion

for production of documents. 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
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|U.S. Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|U.S. Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 31,433 | 29,448 | 27,767 | 27,143 | 28,388 | 29,182 | 29,096 | 28,466 | 26,902 | 25,987
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 26,748 | 27,036 | 25,204 | 22,570 | 19,271 | 17,831 | 15,360 | 14,439 | 13,546 | 12,552
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 11,765 | 10,420 | 9,392  | 8,193  | 8,527  | 7,296  | 6,144  | 5,945  | 6,285  | 5,568 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,245  | 4,484  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
1

1300-036/Joint ADR Report

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

TRUITT WIELAND §

Plaintiff,§

vs. § No. 1:20-CV-00204

§

TARGET CORPORATION §

Defendant.§

JOINT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-88(b) and the Scheduling Order in this cause, the parties, 

Plaintiff, Truitt Wieland (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, Target Corporation (“Defendant”), hereby 

submit this Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) and would respectfully show the 

Court as follows:

1. To date, Plaintiff has made a settlement demand and Defendant has made a 

settlement offer in response to Plaintiff’s demand, pursuant to the Scheduling Order. 

2. The parties have agreed to mediate this case and are conferring about possible 

mediators and a date to mediate.

3. The person responsible for settlement negotiations and evaluating whether ADR is

appropriate for Plaintiff is counsel for Plaintiff, Troy Harber, Law Office of Troy Harber.

4. The people responsible for settlement negotiations and evaluating whether ADR is 

appropriate for Defendant are Target representatives, and counsel for Defendant, Deborah Clark 

of Clark & Clark.

Respectfully Submitted,

CLARK & CLARK 

A Division of Clark Legal Services, PLLC

By: /s/ Deborah G. Clark 

Deborah G. Clark

State Bar No. 04276550

deborah@clarkandclarklaw.com

3624 North Hills Drive, Suite 205-A

Austin, Texas 78731

Case 1:20-cv-00204-JRN Document 16 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1300-036/Joint ADR Report

(512) 241-1800 Telephone

(512) 241-1760 Fax

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

TARGET CORPORATION

LAW OFFICE OF TROY HARBER

Electronically Signed with Permission:

By: /s/ Troy Harber 

Troy Harber

State Bar No. 0793082

troy@southaustinlaw.com

1007 Mopac Circle, Suite 102

Austin, Texas 78746

Phone: (512) 799-2336

Fax: (512) 276-6604

Bradley L. Houston

State Bar No. 10051600

brad@bradhoustonlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

TRUITT WIELAND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature above, I hereby certify that on this 28th day of July 2020, a true and correct 

copy of the above and foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using 

the CM/ECF system, and was served via electronic means, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, to all parties and their representatives:

Troy Harber

Law Office of Troy Harber

1007 Mopac Circle, Suite 102

Austin, Texas 78746

troy@southaustinlaw.com

Bradley L. Houston

Law Office of Bradley Houston

1007 Mopac Circle, Suite 102

Austin, Texas 78746

brad@bradhoustonlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, TRUITT 

WIELAND

Case 1:20-cv-00204-JRN Document 16 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-441-CV

VICKI PRESLEY, AS NEXT FRIEND 

OF SHAWN DAVIS, DECEASED	APPELLANT

	V.

REPUBLIC ENERGY DRILLING, L.L.C.	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	Vicki Presley, as next friend of Shawn Davis, deceased, is attempting to appeal the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice all of Presley’s claims against Republic Energy Drilling, L.L.C.  Although the trial court’s order in this case states that it “is a final judgment and is appealable,” the order does not dispose of Presley’s claims against Louis Goodman and Teddy Garland or purport to do so.  Further, the trial court has not signed a severance order.  Where, as here, there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.2   Accordingly, the order is not final for purposes of appeal.  Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.3 	

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  April 5, 2007
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 April 2006

(2006/C 87/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
State of New Mexico RECEIVED -c 6P,..~O~~:J 

ENVIRONMENT DEPART~J!NRANNING ~ 

SUSANA MARTINEZ 

Governor 

JOHN A. SANCHEZ 

Lieutenant Governor 

Mr. Ron Curry 

Regional Administrator 

Office of the Secretary 12 OCT - 9 PM 5. 

Harold Runnels Building 

1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469 

Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 

Telephone (505) 827-2855 Fax (505) 827-2836 

www.nmenv.state.run.us 

September 26, 2012 

U.S. EPA Region 6 (6-RA) 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas. Texas 75202-2733 

DAVE MARTIN 

Secretary 

BUTCH TONGATE 

Deputy Secretary 

RE: Streamlining of New Mexico's Transportation Conformity Regulation, 20.2.99 NMAC 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

On October I 0, 2011, New Mexico submitted to EPA revisions to 20.2.99 NMAC- Conformity 

to the State Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Project, for EPA's 

approval and incorporation into New Mexico's State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA has not 

yet acted upon this submittal. 

The purpose of this letter is to request that in reviewing New Mexico's October 10, 2011 and any 

future transportation conformity SIP submittals, EPA only consider and act on the three elements 

(40 CFR § 93.105; § 93.122(a)(4)(ii); and§ 93.125(c)) that are required under Clean Air Act 

section 176(c)(4)(E), as amended in August of2005 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and that EPA take no action on 

the remainder of the State's transportation conformity SIP. 

As you know, EPA "strongly encourages states to only include the three required provisions in a 

conformity SIP to take advantage of the streamlining possibilities provided by the Clean Air Act, 

as amended by SAFETEA-LU" in order to "reduce the administrative burden ... by 

minimize[ing] the possibility of having to revise the conformity SIP each time the federal rule is 

revised." 73 Fed. Reg. 4420, 4430- 4432 (Jan. 24, 2008). The New Mexico Environment 

Department agrees that this approach will reduce our administrative burden without affecting the 

substantive requirements for transportation conformity, by eliminating the need to replicate 

verbatim the remainder of 40 C.F.R. Part 93 in the New Mexico Administrative Code. We 

therefore make this request, as recommended in EPA's Guidance for Developing Transportation 

Conformity State Implementation Plans (SIPs), at p. 6. 
September 26, 2012 

Page 2 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Gail 

Cooke of my staff at 505-476-4319 or via email at gail.cooke@state.nm.us. 

Dave Martin 

Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department 

cc: Mr. Jeffrey Riley, EPA Region VI 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region VI 

Mr. Tom Diggs, EPA Region VI 

Mr. Richard Goodyear, Air Quality Bureau 

Ms. Mary Lou Leonard, Director, Environmental Health Department, City of Albuquerque