alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Texas Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 11    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 78     | 33     | 23     | 3      | 10     | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                
|                                                             
|Utah Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Utah Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 93     | 62     | 97    
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 156    | 413    | 60     | 93     | 41     | 27     | 51     | 12     | 3      | 9     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 55     | 21     | 37     | 11     | 43     | 19     | 126    | 164    | 133    | 618   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 266    | 269    | 368    | 230    | 299    | 596    | 1,408  | 744    | 801    | 164   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 106    | 643    | 447    | 117    | 164    | 160    | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CONVERSANT WIRELESS LICENSING 

S.A.R.L., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TESLA, INC., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil No. 6:20-cv-00323-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 

Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Conversant”) and Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) 

hereby file this Stipulation of Dismissal and stipulate to the dismissal of the present action. All 

claims of infringement that Conversant raised in this action are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. 

Case 6:20-cv-00323-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 3
Dated: December 1, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Deron R. Dacus (w/ permission) 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jamie H. McDole 

Deron R. Dacus 

Texas Bar No. 00790553 

THE DACUS FIRM, PC 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

(903) 705-1117 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com

Michael Rhodes (pro hac vice) 

Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice) 

COOLEY LLP 

3175 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 

(650) 843-5000 

hkeefe@cooley.com

mrhodes@cooley.com

Adam M. Pivovar (pro hac vice) 

Samuel Whitt (pro hac vice) 

COOLEY LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 842-7800 

apivovar@cooley.com

swhitt@cooley.com

Joseph E. Van Tassel (pro hac vice) 

COOLEY LLP 

11951 Freedom Drive 

Reston, VA 20190-5656 

(703) 456-8000 

jvantassel@cooley.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Tesla, Inc.

Jamie H. McDole 

State Bar No. 24082049 

Phillip B. Philbin 

State Bar No. 15909020 

Michael D. Karson 

State Bar No. 24090198 

Nadia E. Haghighatian 

State Bar No. 24087652 

THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 

One Arts Plaza 

1722 Routh St., Suite 1500 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Tel.: 214.969.1700 

Fax: 214.969.1751 

Email: jamie.mcdole@tklaw.com

phillip.philbin@tklaw.com

michael.karson@tklaw.com

nadia.haghighatian@tklaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.

 

Case 6:20-cv-00323-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On December 1, 2020, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the Clerk 

of Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas using the electronic case files 

system of the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5, the Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) 

generated by the Court’s electronic filing system constitutes service of the foregoing document on 

those registered as Filing Users. Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, 

facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. 

Dated: December 1, 2020 /s/ Jamie H. McDole 

 Jamie H. McDole 

Case 6:20-cv-00323-ADA Document 27 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 3
#### JONES et al. v. JONES et al.

No. 9799.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

May 18, 1949.

*292Robert B. Thrasher and Wm. Clarke Blalock, of Austin, for appellants.

Appellees were not represented in this court.

HUGHES, Justice.

In Jones v. Lind, 211 S.W.2d 587, this court affirmed a judgment of the trial court setting aside deeds to 168 acres of land in Travis County. The parties in that suit and this suit are the same, but ap-pellees there are appellants here.

The purpose of this suit, by appellants, is to recover the rental value of the lands recovered in the former suit while they were used and occupied by appellees.

The trial court, being of the opinion that a “plea in abatement” should be sustained, ordered the suit abated and decreed that appellants take nothing by their suit.

The “plea in abatement” alleged that the former suit “is for trespass to try title and for damages, and that all matters in controversy are involved in the first suit and will be finally adjudicated in that case, and, therefore, the court should take no jurisdiction of this case other than to dismiss it.”

The only evidence offered in support of .this plea was a stipulation that in the former suit appellants recovered a judgment setting aside certain deeds and recovering the title to and possession of the 168 acres of land which they now own.

The pleadings in the former suit were not offered in evidence and it is not otherwise shown that rents for use and occupancy of the lands were or were not sued for in the former action.

The proper guide for the trial court is found in the following quotation from Davis v. First National Bank of Waco, 139 Tex. 36, 161 S.W.2d 467, 471, 144 A.L.R. 1: “It is apparent from the use in the quoted rule of the words ‘distinctly put in issue’ and from other expressions in the court’s opinion in Oklahoma v. Texas [256 U.S. 70, 41 S.Ct. 420, 65 L.Ed. 831] that consideration must be given to the pleadings in testing what was involved and determined in the former suit. In James v. James, 81 Tex. 373, 380, 16 S.W. 1087, 1089, it is said that: ‘It is a general rule, having its foundation in sound reason, that the former judgment or litigation relied on as having adjudicated the matter, and as a bar to further proceedings, should have involved and determined the same vital issue, or that such issue, or question, should have been fairly within the scope of the pleadings.’ See, also, First National Bank of Bryan v. White, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 1120; 30 Am.Jur. pp. 927, 928, § 182.”

Unquestionably the suit for rents could have been joined with the suit for cancellation of the deeds. 7 Tex.Jur., p. 1016.

If the claim for rents was embraced within the pleadings in the former suit, then the judgment in that case could be pleaded in bar of this suit. Rackley v. Fowlkes, 89 Tex. 613, 36 S.W. 77.

In our opinion this record did not authorize the trial court to sustain the “plea in abatement” and render judgment against appellants, and for the error in so doing the cause is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
#### PIERCE v. STATE.

No. 24998.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 22, 1950.

No attorneys for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for the offense of theft of an automobile. He pleaded guilty before the court, a jury having been waived. He was found guilty and his punishment was assessed at four years confinement in the penitentiary.

There is no statement of facts or bill of exception in the record. No question is presented for -review and the proceedings appear regular.

We observe that the court failed, in pronouncing sentence, to apply the indeterminate sentence law. The sentence is reformed to read that he is to serve not less than two years nor more than four years.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. EP-20-CR-389-DCG

) 

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS, )

)

Defendant. )

ADVISORY TO THE COURT REGARDING FORFEITURE

COMES NOW the United States of America, Plaintiff, by and through the United States 

Attorney for the Western District of Texas, and files this Advisory to the Court Regarding 

Forfeiture. The United States respectfully advises the Court as follows:

I.

On February 6, 2020, an Indictment (ECF No. 1) was returned against Defendant

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS followed by a Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 82) on July 9, 

2020, in the instant criminal case. On July 8, 2022, a Bill of Particulars was filed (ECF. No. 238), 

which included a Notice of United States of America’s Demand for Forfeiture which sought the 

forfeiture of specific personal property, namely:

1. Romarm/Cugir, model GP WASR-10-semi automatic rifle with serial number A1-

65552-18;

2. Two 7.62 x 39 magazines;

3. Approximately 33 rounds of 7.62 x 39 caliber ammunition;

4. One .22 caliber cartridge

5. One tactical helmet, and

6. Any and all firearms, ammunition, and/or accessories involved in or used in the 

commission of the criminal offense,

hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property. 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 276 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 3
2

II.

The United States advises this Court that the Subject Property will not be pursued 

judicially. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Defendant has abandoned any and all right, 

title and interest in the Subject Property.

Respectfully submitted,

MARGARET LEACHMAN

ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES,

ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY

CONFERRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 515

By: /s/

PATRICIA J. ACOSTA

Assistant United States Attorney

Texas Bar No. 8204 

700 E. San Antonio Ave., Suite 200 

El Paso, Texas 79901 Tel: (915) 534-6884 

Fax: (915) 534-3465

Email: patricia.acosta@usdoj.gov

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 276 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 3
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 7, 2023, the foregoing instrument was electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will transmit notification of such filing to 

the following CM/ECF participants: 

Joe A. Spencer , Jr. 

Attorney at Law 

Email: joe@joespencerlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Patrick Wood Crusius 

Rebecca L. Hudsmith 

Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western and Middle Districts of Louisiana

Email: rebecca_hudsmith@fd.org

Attorney for Defendant Patrick Wood Crusius

Felix Valenzuela

Valenzuela Law Firm 

Email: felix@valenzuela-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Patrick Wood Crusius 

Mark Stevens 

Attorney at Law 

Email: mark@markstevenslaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Patrick Wood Crusius

/s/ 

PATRICIA J. ACOSTA

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 276 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1573

DIANE PETTY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00012-FDW)

Submitted: January 26, 2021 Decided: February 24, 2021

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George C. Piemonte, MARTIN JONES & PIEMONTE, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. David Nathaniel Mervis, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Diane Petty seeks to appeal the district court’s order upholding the Administrative 

Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Petty’s applications for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice 

of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on March 20, 2020, and the notice of appeal was 

due on May 19, 2020. Petty filed the notice of appeal on May 20, 2020. Because Petty 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny the Commissioner’s motion for 

abeyance and Petty’s motion to remand. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

Exhibit 23.2


APEX Geoscience Ltd. March 29, 2018 TO:

   Gold Standard Ventures CorpUnited States Securities and Exchange CommissionRe:

   Gold Standard Ventures Corp. (the "Company")Consent of Expert
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to the following report: The amended and restated technical report with an effective date of September 15, 2017 on the Railroad- Pinion Project in Elko County, Nevada, USA, entitled “Technical Report Maiden Resource Estimate North Bullion and Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA – Amended and Restated” (the "Report") In connection with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”), to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, I, Michael B. Dufresne, M.Sc., P.Geol., P.Geo., on behalf of myself and APEX Geoscience Ltd., hereby: 1.

   consent to the public filing of the Report and the use of any extracts from or a summary of the Report in the 40-F;2.

   consent to the use of my name and APEX Geoscience Ltd.'s name and references to the Report, or portions thereof, in the 40-F and to the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the 40-F;3.

   confirm that I have read the 40-F and that it fairly and accurately represents the information in the sections of the Report for which I am responsible; and4.

   confirm that I have read the 40-F and have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the Report or that are within my knowledge as a result of the services performed by me in connection with the Report.
  Yours truly,/s/ Michael B. DufresneMichael B. Dufresne, M.Sc., P.Geol., P.Geo.


---
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 25567.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1951.

*228No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before the court upon a plea of guilty to the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

All matters of procedure appear to be in regular form. The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5185 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5185

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium oxide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium oxide.

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

SECTION 1. YTTRIUM OXIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.21 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to yttrium oxide) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Yttrium oxides having a purity of at 
        least 99.9 percent'' in the article description and inserting 
        ``Yttrium oxide''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 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. 5079 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on asulam sodium salt and 

mixed application adjuvants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on asulam 

sodium salt and mixed application adjuvants. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ASULAM SODIUM SALT AND MIXED APPLICA4 TION ADJUVANTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.87 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 asulam sodium salt and mixed application adjuvants) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5079 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS