alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7098

DOUGLAS R. VAUGHN, II , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NURSE TERRY, Intake Nurse; NURSE ALVIN, Intake Nurse; NURSE DIANE ANTHONY, Head Nurse; NURSE CHELTON, Intake Nurse , Defendants

- Appellees , and CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Medical Staff/Nurses , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 00565

- LMB

- IDD )

Submitted : February 28, 2022 Decided: March 23, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7098 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Douglas R. Vaughn , Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Fitzjames Quirk , SANDS ANDERSON, PC , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7098 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Douglas R. Vaughn II appeals the district court’s order denying relief on h is
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vaughn v. Nurse Terry , No. 1:19

- cv - 00565

- LMB

- IDD ( E.D. Va. June 21, 2021 ) . 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7098 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Subhash Kapoor, Appellant, v Neeru Kapoor, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bianchi, J.), dated June 10, 1988.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Bianchi at the Supreme Court. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11085

Conference Calendar

 

RICHARD ALLEN SWARTZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EMPLOYEES OF TEXAS BOARD OF PARDON AND PAROLE;

ERIC TRAINER, Parole Officer; CECELIA ROY, 

Parole Officer; DON CARTER, Supervisor,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-2020-P

- - - - - - - - - -

August 19, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The motion by Richard Allen Swartz, Texas inmate #382337, to

consolidate appeals is DENIED.

Swartz seeks to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal

for frivolousness of his civil rights complaint. Swartz is

BARRED by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP because, on at

least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Swartz has

brought an action or appeal in a United States Court that was
No. 97-11085

-2-

dismissed for frivolousness, for maliciousness, or for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Patton v.

Jefferson Correctional Ctr., 136 F.3d 458, 462-64 (5th Cir.

1998); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996);

see also Swartz v. Kennedy, No. 96-10982 (5th Cir. June 12, 1997)

(unpublished) (two strikes); Swartz v. Texas Bd. of Pardons &

Paroles, No. 96-11047 (5th Cir. June 12, 1997) (unpublished) (two

strikes). 

Accordingly, Swartz’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED. He may not

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in

prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This appeal is DISMISSED.

Swartz has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the

full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district

court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE DENIED. IFP DECERTIFIED. APPEAL

DISMISSED.
|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)     
|View History: Annual                               
|View History: Annual                               
|View History:                                      
|                                                   
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                   
|                                                   
|Arkansas 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,460  | 3,833  | 9,070 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 12,526 | 14,808 | 9,779  | 12,231 | 11,695 | 7,164  | 6,262  | 7,090  | 5,970  | 5,093 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,210  | 5,127  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### TIPS v. SECURITY LIFE & ACCIDENT CO. et al.

No. 11514.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 16, 1945.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1945.

S. D. Hopkins, of San Antonio, for-appellant.

Brewer, Matthews, Nowlin & Macfar-lane, of San Antonio, for appellees.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an interpleader suit. The Security Life and Accident Company tendered into court the sum of $1,799.75, the amount due upon an insurance policy covering the life of Frederick Julius Tips, deceased. Those impleaded as defendants were Margaret Chambers Tips, the divorced wife of decedent, Emilie I. Tips, mother of decedent, and Will Chambers Tips, administrator of the estate of decedent.

After trial before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered for Margaret Chambers Tips. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed. Mrs. Emilie I. Tips brings the case here.

There are but two questions involved: First, Did Frederick Julius Tips make an effective change of beneficiary under the terms of the policy involved? Second, Did Margaret Chambers Tips have an insurable interest in her former husband’s life at the time of his death?

The first question must be answered in the negative. The named beneficiary in the policy was Margaret Chambers Tips, who was married to Frederick Julius Tips in 1916. They were divorced in July, 1940. Some months prior to this divorce, Frederick Julius Tips filled out a form, addressed to the insurance company, purporting to designate his mother, Emilie I. Tips as beneficiary of the policy in lieu of his wife, Margaret Chambers Tips. This instrument was never mailed to the company by Frederick Julius Tips and its existence was unknown to the company until after the death of Tips. The policy provided that a change of beneficiary should not be effective until a notice in writing had been received and approved by the company. It can not be said that the deceased did all he could reasonably have done to perfect a change of beneficiary during his lifetime. His' failure to deliver the notification of change of beneficiary to the insurance com*220pany is fatal to appellant’s contentions upon this phase of the case. Adams v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 664; Kelley v. McDonald, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 414.

 We are also of the opinion that Margaret Chambers Tips had an insurable interest in the life of Frederick Julius Tips at the time of his death in 1944. The evidence discloses that three children were born to the marriage of Margaret Chambers Tips and Frederick Julius Tips. The father was under a continuing moral and legal duty to support these children, although their custody was awarded to the mother by the divorce decree. Gully v. Gully, 111 Tex. 233, 231 S.W. 97, 15 A.L.R. 564. Two of the children were minors at the time of their father’s death. On this point the case is ruled by Simpson v. Clayton, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 504.

The judgment, of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 10     | -2    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -1     | 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-28-1997             
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-29-1997           
<CASH>                                             620,295 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,768,030 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       419,716 
<INVENTORY>                                     14,351,950 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,908,881 
<PP&E>                                           3,588,673 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,722,726 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,098,260 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,977,611 
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                           326,287
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,677,461  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,098,260 
<SALES>                                         55,728,776 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,728,776 
<CGS>                                           46,236,808 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,884,701 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (19,924) 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,863,999 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,116,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,747,999 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0            
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,747,999  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.52  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.52  
                                                         

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6274
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME FIELDS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-84-115-A, CA-96-1667-AM) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 19, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Patrice Tandy, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fields , Nos. CR-84-115-A; CA-96-1667-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff,

AND 

JASON COPLEY, DA’VONTA 

COPLEY, ALBERTICO GUTIERREZ 

RUBIO, ADRIAN QUEZADA, SHAWN 

COTTON, and JOSHUA GARCIA,

 Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., PLAINS ALL 

AMERICAN GP, LLC, PLAINS 

MARKETING, L.P., and 

COPPERHEAD PIPELINE AND 

CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

MO:20-CV-00082-DC

FINAL JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE COURT is the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree. (Doc. 93). After 

reviewing the Consent Decree, the Court finds that all issues in the Plaintiff Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Complaint have been disposed of, that the EEOC and 

Defendants Plains Pipeline, L.P., Plains All American GP LLC, Plains Marketing, L.P. 

(collectively “Plains”) and Copperhead Pipeline and Construction Inc., (“Copperhead”) are in 

agreement, and that the Consent Decree should be entered. Entry of the Consent Decree includes 

the claims made by Intervenor-Plaintiffs Jason Copley, Da’Vonta Copley, Albertico Gutierrez 

Rubio, Adrian Quezada, Shawn Cotton, and Joshua Garcia (“Intervenors”). 

It is therefore ordered that the Consent Decree is hereby entered. The Court shall retain 

jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions as set forth in the Consent Decree, which is 

attached to the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree. 

Case 7:20-cv-00082-DC-RCG Document 95 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 2
2

The Court ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court CLOSE this case. 

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 5th day of August, 2022.

DAVID COUNTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00082-DC-RCG Document 95 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 2
#### SIMS v. STATE.

No. 23626.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The proceedings are regular and nothing is presented for our review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

HAWKINS, J., absent.
Exhibit
32.2




PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the annual report of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Alan Ginsberg, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


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




A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.




Date:
March 2, 2009




/s/ Alan
Ginsberg___


Alan
Ginsberg


Chief
Financial Officer
{00185477.1}

UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT

IN LIEU OF MEETING OF

THE MEMBERS OF ZROBLACK LLC

The undersigned members hereby adopt the following resolutions on behalf of 

ZroBlack LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

WHEREAS, the persons signing this consent are all the members of ZroBlack LLC 

entitled and required to vote and consent at the meetings and on the following 

resolutions; 

WHEREAS, the undersigned wish to memorialize John Saenz’s assignment of his entire 

interest in ZroBlack LLC to Jonathan Villarreal;

WHEREAS, the undersigned desire to execute this unanimous written consent in lieu of 

formally holding a meeting, and agree that the adoption of the following resolutions 

shall be valid and have the same force and effect as though such resolutions had been 

adopted at formal meetings; therefore, be it:

RESOLVED, that John Saenz hereby assigns his entire interest in ZroBlack LLC to 

Jonathan Villarreal pursuant to Article VII of the “Limited Liability Company 

Operating Agreement for ZroBlack LLC” dated January 14, 2019 and applicable laws; 

and

RESOLVED, that the undersigned authorize the law firm of Gunn, Lee & Cave, P.C. to 

prepare, execute and file any documents necessary to effectuate the resolutions stated 

herein with the Delaware Secretary of State on behalf of ZroBlack LLC.

The undersigned direct that this unanimous written consent may be executed in 

multiple counterparts, all of which shall be considered originals and that this 

unanimous written consent, including multiple counterparts, be filed with the minutes 

of the proceedings of ZroBlack LLC.

DATED effective on _________________________, 2019.

By: ______________________________

 Jonathan Villarreal, Member

By: ______________________________

 John Saenz, Member

DocuSign Envelope ID: BD22414D-0AA8-47DA-948B-B71A3B0495DD Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-18 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 99


                          AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
                           630 EAST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
                           SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA 91773
                 TELEPHONE: 909-394-3600 FACSIMILE: 909-394-1382
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


May 9, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen/Ladies:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, American States
Water Company (the "Company") has obtained a letter of representation from
Arthur Andersen LLP, the Company's independent public accountants, stating that
their review of the consolidated financial statements of the Company and its
subsidiaries included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2002 was subject to Arthur Andersen's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards; and that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen
personnel working on the review and availability of national office consultation
to conduct the relevant portion of the review. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not applicable to this review.

Sincerely,

/s/:  McClellan Harris III
--------------------------

McClellan Harris III
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President - Finance,
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5184 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lanthanum 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 suspend temporarily the duty on lanthanum oxide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANTHANUM OXIDE. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lanthanum oxide (CAS 

No. 13778–59–1) (provided for in subheading 

2846.90.80) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5184 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS