alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Utah Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Utah Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 600    | 18     | 1,011  | 750    | 966    | 6      | 1,161  | 490    | 260    | 94    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 543    | 782    | 12     | 494    | 24     | 44     | 75     | 134    | 705    | 1,123 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 812    | 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8029

FELTON YAWN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden ECI,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (4:09-cv-01221-PMD)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felton Yawn, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Felton Yawn, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently 

reviewed the record and conclude that Yawn has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
Case 3:20-cv-00085-KC Document 36 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cv-00085-KC Document 36 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 2
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 13     | 18     | 11     | 10     | 10     | 9      | 9      | 5      | 6     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 4      | 4      | 2      | 2      | 1      | 3      | 4      | 4     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 3      | 4      | 3      | 4      |       
|- = 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

l1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

137373(76) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137373 

 COA: 275911 

Oakland CC: 2006-209376-FH 

JERMAINE CURTIS BRANNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 7, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant 

leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in People v Branner, 

483 Mich 1120 (2009).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4769 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4769

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 180.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 180.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 180.

    (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        Pigment Yellow      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          180. (CAS                                                         12/31/2015
                          No.77804-81-0)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3204.17.60)......

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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5278 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5278

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on propoxur (2-(1-
                 methylethoxy)phenol methylcarbamate).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on propoxur (2-(1-
                 methylethoxy)phenol methylcarbamate).

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

SECTION 1. PROPOXUR (2-(1-METHYLETHOXY)PHENOL METHYLCARBAMATE).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.57 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to propoxur (2-(1-
methylethoxy)phenol methylcarbamate)) is amended by striking the date 
in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (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>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4552 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic or modacrylic 

staple fibers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC STAPLE FI4 BERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.22 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain acrylic or modacrylic staple fibers) is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4552 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5159 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, brominated, dehydrochlorinated, methoxylated and 

triethyl phosphate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer with (chloromethyl)oxirane, brominated, 

dehydrochlorinated, methoxylated and triethyl phosphate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2-BUTYNE-1,4-DIOL, POLYMER WITH 

4 (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE, BROMINATED, 

5 DEHYDROCHLORINATED, METHOXYLATED 

6 AND TRIETHYL PHOSPHATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5159 IH

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer 

with (chloromethyl)oxirane, 

brominated, 

dehydrochlorinated, 

methoxylated (CAS No. 

68441–62–3) and triethyl 

phosphate (CAS No. 78– 

40–0) (provided for in subheading 3907.20.00) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ April 08, 2024 NM

Case 5:20-cv-00121-OLG Document 27 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:20-cv-00121-OLG Document 27 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 2
|                                                                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                               
|Michigan Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                               
|Michigan Associated-Dissolved 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 3     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 20, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 1168 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- 33861

________________ 

### Krisia Del Prado, et al. , Appellant s ,
vs. 

### Optimus U.S. 801 NW 47th Ave, LLC, etc., et al. , Appellee s

.

An Appeal from a non - final order from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh , Judge. Law Office of Mich a el Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar) , for appellant s

. Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and Scott M. Dimond and Lorenz Michel P r ü ss , for appellee s

.
Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM

.2 Affirmed. See Garcia v. Christiana Tr. , 230 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (requiring “ the moving party to ‘allege new [post

- judgment] circumstances affecting the decision made by the trial judge’” ) (quoting Gotham Ins. Co. v. Matthew , 179 So. 3d 437, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)) ; United States v. Watts , 786 F.3d 152, 160 (2d Cir. 2015) (“As a general matter, the section clarifies that ‘[a]ll right, title, and interest in property

. . . [subject to criminal forfeiture] vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture.’”) (alteration in original) ( quoting 21 U.S.C. § 853(c)) ; Baker v. Baker , 920 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]his court has held that the equities mentioned in [ Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5)] are limited to ones that come to fruition after the final judgment.”) ; Pure H2O Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti , 937 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (explaining tha t “Rule 1.540(b)(5) was designed to provide ‘ extraordinary relief ’ in exceptional circumstances, and is to be narrowly construed” ) (citations omitted); Toledano v. Garcia , 338 So. 3d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (noting abuse of discretion standard in re viewing an order denying a Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) motion) ; see also § 605.0108(1), Fla. Stat. (“A limited liability company is an entity distinct from its members.”); Corp. Exp ress Off. Prod s ., Inc. v. Phillips , 847 So. 2d 406, 411 (Fla. 2003) (“A founda tion of3 corporate law is that . . . the existence of a corporate entity is not affected by changes in its ownership or changes in management.”)

.
**Exhibit 32.01**

**OfficerCertification**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSouthwestern Public Service Company (SPS) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (Form 10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of  SPS certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to such officer’s knowledge:

(1)                    The Form 10-Qfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                    Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of SPS as of thedates   and for the periodsexpressed in the Form 10-Q.
| Date: July 27, 2007                        |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                       |   |   |
|  /s/ DAVID L. EVES                    |   |   |
|  David L. Eves                        |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer      |   |
|                                       |   |   |
| /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE III                |   |   |
| Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                    |   |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SPS andwill be retained by SPS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

YETI COOLERS, LLC, 

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-00503-RP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Now comes Plaintiff, Symbology Innovations, LLC, by and through its counsel, pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), and hereby voluntarily dismisses all of the claims asserted against 

Defendant Yeti Coolers, LLC in the within action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Yeti Coolers, LLC 

has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. 

Dated: June 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Together with: /s/Jay Johnson 

Jay Johnson

SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA KIZZIA & JOHNSON, PLLC

Howard L. Wernow 1910 Pacific Avenue – Suite 13000

(pro hac vice forthcoming) Dallas, Texas 75201

Aegis Tower - Suite 1100 Phone: 214-451-0164

4940 Munson Street, N. W. Fax: 214-451-0165

Canton, Ohio 44718 jay@kjpllc.com

Phone: 330-244-1174

Fax: 330-244-1173 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Howard.Wernow@sswip.com

Case 1:20-cv-00503-RP Document 11 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0716

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TRAVIS DEWAYNE LOHMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pur suant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Jason Marks , Distri ct Judge . For the Court,

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

April 10 2024

04/10/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0716
#### MILLER v. STATE.

No. 25391.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1951.

No attorney for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, twelve years in the penitentiary.

There being no statement of facts or bills of exception in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.