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

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 190    | 259    | 43     | 230    | 140    | 44     | 18     | 65     | 17     | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 17     | 124    | 887    | 31     | 1,092  | 6      | 304    | 457    | 4      | 771   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 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
#### MIDKIFF v. STATE.

No. 23960.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 10, 1948.

John A. Croom, of Houston, for appellant.

*355Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for driving an automobile while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

The jurat to the complaint reads as follows :

> “Sworn to and subscribed by Ray Owens, a credible person before me, on this the 24th day of February, A.D. 1947.

> “Sidney J. Brown,

> “(No Seal) Fort Bend County, Texas.”

 A complaint must be sworn to before an officer authorized to administer an oath. Art 415, C.C.P. The jurat to the instant complaint does not so reflect. It is, therefore, fatally defective. Shurbet v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 60 S.W.2d 791; Neely v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 92, 161 S.W.2d 294.

Because the information is not supported by a valid complaint, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

PECOS DIVISION

JESUS RAMOS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MICHAEL J. CANNON, and 

VENTURE LOGISTICS LLC,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 PE:20-CV-00014-DF 

ORDER RESETTING TRIAL AND GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Jury selection and trial in the above-captioned cause are currently set for Tuesday, 

February 22, 2022, at 8:30 A.M. (Doc. 50). A final pretrial conference is scheduled for 8:00 

A.M., on the same day. (Doc. 50). The parties in this case have filed a Renewed Joint Motion for 

Continuance (hereafter, “Motion for Continuance”), seeking to continue the trial setting for at 

least 30 days, pending the outcome of a mediation scheduled for February 14, 2022. (Doc. 61 at 

2). The Court believes a continuance of the extant jury selection and trial settings is warranted to 

allow sufficient time for the February 14, 2022, mediation. 

It is ORDERED that the Motion for Continuance be GRANTED. (Doc. 61).

It is further ORDERED that the prior jury selection and trial settings are VACATED.

It is further ORDERED that jury selection will now occur on Monday, March 14, 2022,

at 8:30 A.M. CT. The final pretrial conference will now occur at 8:00 A.M. CT, on the same 

day. Jury selection and the final pretrial conference will be held in Courtroom 2 of the United 

States Courthouse, 410 South Cedar Street, Pecos, Texas 79772.

It is further ORDERED that trial will now occur on Tuesday, March 15, 2022, at 9:00 

A.M. CT. The jury as well as the parties will reconvene following jury selection on March 15, 

2022, in the Courtroom of the United States Courthouse, 2450 State Highway 118, Alpine, Texas

Case 4:20-cv-00014-DF Document 63 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 2
2

79830.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 4th day of February, 2022.

DAVID B. FANNIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00014-DF Document 63 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

INFOGATION CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-0366-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF MARK LIANG FOR DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS INFOGATION’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT (D.I. 27) PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(6)

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 40-1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 2
2

I, Mark Liang, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, counsel for Defendant

Google LLC, in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein 

and if called to testify could and would competently testify thereto. 

2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of InfoGation’s Infringement 

Contentions Exhibit A claim chart served on August 21, 2020, in this matter.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed September 15, 2020, in San Francisco, California.

 /s/ Mark Liang

 Mark Liang

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 40-1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6541** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER FRED GOAD, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00184

- REP

- 1; 3:11

- cv - 00026

- REP )

Submitted : August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Fred Goad, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett James, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attor ney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Fred Goad, Sr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the di spositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goad 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Deborah Laufer, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

KING'S INN, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00387-

ADA-JCM

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL [FRCP 41(A)] AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby notifies this Court 

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) that this action is dismissed with prejudice as 

to all claims, causes of action, and parties, with each party bearing that party’s 

own attorney’s fees and costs.

Dated: June 2, 2020 

/s/ Tristan W. Gillespie

Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq.

THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.

5150 Cottage Farm Rd.

Johns Creek, GA 30022

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

DEBORAH LAUFER

Case 6:20-cv-00387-ADA-JCM Document 10 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), IT IS ORDERED THAT 

THIS ACTION BE, AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to 

all claims, causes of action, and parties, with each party bearing that party’s own 

attorney’s fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

Dated: June 2, 2020

 ___________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00387-ADA-JCM Document 10 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Aetna Insurance Company, Appellant, v Joseph A. Mirisola, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered October 5, 1989, which, *inter alia,*struck several items from plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection and otherwise granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to respond to the notice, is unanimously affirmed with costs and disbursements by plaintiff.

Defendant obtained a fine arts floater policy from plaintiff covering objects of art including an alleged Gainsborough painting insured for $400,000. Defendant subsequently submitted a claim under the policy, reporting that the painting had been stolen from his San Francisco apartment on January 13, 1985. Plaintiff’s investigation concluded that the Gainsborough was not an original and was worth only $10,000 and plaintiff commenced this action for reformation or rescission of the policy on grounds of mutual mistake or plaintiff’s unilateral mistake combined with defendant’s fraud.

Thereafter, plaintiff served a notice for discovery and inspection seeking documents related to the defendant’s deposition testimony. Defendant did not seek a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3122 and failed to respond to plaintiff’s notice. Plaintiff accordingly moved for an order pursuant to *271CPLR 3124 compelling defendant to respond to plaintiff’s notice for discovery. The IAS court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, but struck certain requested items.

Ordinarily, where defendant fails to timely seek a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3122, the court will be foreclosed from inquiring into the propriety of the discovery requests *(Zurich Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*137 AD2d 401). However, an exception to this general rule is recognized where discovery requests are " 'palpably improper’ ” *(Spancrete Northeast v Elite Assocs.,*148 AD2d 694, 695) or "seek information of a confidential and private nature * * * not relevant to the issues” *(supra,*at 695-696). Thus, the IAS court properly struck plaintiffs request for defendant’s tax returns *(see, Matthews Indus. Piping Co. v Mobil Oil Corp.,*114 AD2d 772) and requests for three years of checking account and credit card records since these requests either sought confidential and private material not relevant to the issues or were overbroad and palpably improper. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
I
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MAR 2 4 2020

WACO DIVISION CLERK, U.S

WESTERN
BY.

STANDING ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULED HEARINGS IN CIVIL CASES
IN LIGHT OF CHIEF JUDGE GARCIA’S MARCH 24 AMENDED ORDER

In light of Chief Judge Garcia’s Amended Order dated March 24, the Court enters the
following order:

e All hearings for civil cases on the Waco division’s docket will continue as
scheduled, but will occur telephonically. The Court will provide the dial-in
information! either via e-mail or within an order. Because there may be several
hearings back-to-back, attorneys should wait until their case is called before
speaking. Parties are encouraged to dial-in at least 10 minutes before the
scheduled start time.

e For non-Markman hearings, to the extent a party wishes to use PowerPoint
slides, the party must email them to the Court at least 24 hours before the hearing.
If both parties wish to use PowerPoint slides, the parties must email them to the
Court at an agreed time at least 24 hours before the hearing. If a party fails to
email slides to the Court at least 24 hours before the hearing, the Court will deem
that that party has waived its ability to use slides during the hearing.

e For Markman hearings, parties must email any slides they wish to use within 6

hours of receiving preliminary constructions from the Court.

' The parties are directed to provide a back-up conference call number in case there are technical issues with the
Court's conference call number.


SIGNED this 24th day of March, 2020.

HT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4930 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4930

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline.

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

SECTION 1. 4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.15 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline) 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>
```
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 34     | 31     | 22     | 0      | 0      | 7     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 14     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Jaime Castaneda-Castaneda

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CR-95-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 11, 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 waived prosecution by indictment;

5. The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

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

7. 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 11, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
| 1.  | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;    and |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.  | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of      the Company. |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 7, 2011 |                                       |   |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | /s/ Shevach Saraf                          |   |
|                       | Shevach      Saraf                         |   |
|                       | Chairman,      President,                  |   |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer,              |   |
|                       | Treasurer      and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                       | (Principal      executive officer and      |   |
|                       | principal      financial officer)          |   |

----