alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                         
|                                                                                                      
|U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                      
|U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 804    | 1,068  | 663    | 1,427  | 1,456  | 1,583  | 1,646  | 1,674  | 1,097  | 955   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,096  | 1,421  | 1,041  | 921    | 1,228  | 660    | 751    | 675    | 924    | 298   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 333    | 98     | 349    | 271    | 215    | 183    | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
United States District Court 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CITY OF RED OAK, TEXAS et al. § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-2761-S 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE et al. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant United States Department of 

Agriculture's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Motion to Transfer 

[ECF No. 35]. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part the Motion and transfers the 

case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. 

I. BACKGROUND

The Rockett Special Utility District ("Rockett") holds a Certificate of Convenience and 

Necessity ("CCN") issued by the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUC"). See First Am. 

Comp!. ,r 34. The CCN gives Rockett the exclusive rights to provide water services within the 

certificated area. See id. ,r 16. Here, the certificated area allegedly includes property owned by 

the Red Oak Industrial Development Corporation ("ROIDC"). See id. ,r 34. Accordingly, on 

August 19, 2019, ROIDC petitioned the PUC to decertify certain areas within Rockett's CCN. See 

id.; see also Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss and Mot. to Transfer ("Mot.") 4. 

In response, on October 16, 2019, Rockett sued the PUC Commissioners in their official 

capacities in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking to enjoin 

the PUC from decertifying Rockett's CCN and requesting a declaratory judgment that 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1926(b) preempts conflicting provisions in the Texas Water Code ("Western District Case"). 

See Mot. 5. On November 5, 2019, the PUC stayed the CCN decertification proceedings "due to 

Case 1:20-cv-00483-LY Document 69 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-00483-LY Document 69 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-00483-LY Document 69 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-00483-LY Document 69 Filed 05/04/20 Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[GGD07-00-092]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; CSX Railroad Bridge (South Fork 
of the New River), Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, has approved a 
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the 
CSX Railroad Drawbridge across the South Fork of the New River, mile 
2.8, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. This deviation allows the 
drawbridge owner not to open for vessel traffic. This temporary 
deviation is required October 7, 2000 from 6:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., 
to allow the bridge owner to safely complete repairs to the drawbridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective on October 7, 2000, from 6:00 a.m. 
until 12:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Chief, Operations 
Section, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Section at (305) 415-
6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CSX Railroad Drawbridge across the South 
Fork of the New River at Ft. Lauderdale, has a vertical clearance of 2 
feet above mean high water (MHW) measured at the fenders in the closed 
position. On July 11, 2000 the owner, requested a deviation from the 
current operating regulation in 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the 
drawbridge to open promptly and fully when a request to open is given. 
This temporary deviation was requested to allow necessary repairs to 
the drawbridge in a critical time sensitive manner.
    The District Commander has granted a temporary deviation from the 
operating requirements listed in 33 CFR 117.5 for the purpose of repair 
completion of the drawbridge. Under this deviation, the CSX Railroad 
Drawbridge (South Fork of the New River) need not open. The deviation 
is effective on October 7, 2000 from 6:00 a.m. until 11:59 p.m.

    Dated: September 22, 2000.
G.E. Shapley,
Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 00-25486 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, )

GILBERTO HINOJOSA, Chair of the )

Texas Democratic Party, JOSEPH DANIEL )

CASCINO, SHANDA MARIE SANSING, )

and BRENDA LI GARCIA, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-20-CA-438-FB

)

GREG ABBOTT, Governor of Texas, )

KEN PAXTON, Texas Attorney General, )

RUTH HUGHS, Texas Secretary of )

State, DANA DEBEAUVOIR, Travis )

County Clerk, and JACQUELYN F. )

CALLANEN, Bexar County Elections )

Administrator, )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER OF STAY

Before the Court is the status of the above styled and numbered cause. The Fifth Circuit Court

of Appeals has stayed this Court’s preliminary injunction order pending appeal. (Docket no. 116). The

Court is therefore of the opinion that this case should be stayed pending the conclusion of the appellate

proceedings related to the preliminary injunction order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending the conclusion of the

appellate proceedings related to the preliminary injunction order. 

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 16th day of June, 2020.

 _________________________________________________

 FRED BIERY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 117 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 1
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Pennsylvania 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                                                                                                                            | 125    | 11     | 5      | 30     | 28     | 78     | 6      | 4      | 277    | 52    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 683    | 805    | 5      | 104    | 509    | 321    | 1,747  | 5,640  | 172    | 604   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,609  | 288    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00267-CV

JUDITH MARIE GONZALEZ A PPELLANT V. PHILLIPS EQUITY CAPITAL, LLC A PPELLEE

------------ FROM COUNTY COUR T AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2017-004046-1

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ On January 8, 2018, we notified appella nt that her brief had not been filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). 2 We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 We served our January 8, 2018 notice by letter to appellant’s last known physical address. Upon receiving no response, on February 7, 2018, we attempted to serve a seco nd notice via email to the address provided in2 unless appellant filed with the court with in ten days an appellant's brief and a motion reasonably expl aining the failure to file an appellant's brief and the need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have not received any response. Because appellant ha s failed to file a brief a fter having been given an opportunity to provide a r easonable explanation for th e failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 (a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; WA LKER and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: February 15, 2018

appellant’s affidavit of inability to afford payment of court costs. The email notice was returned as undeliverable.
#### SIMMONS v. STATE.

No. 25643.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1952.

*255Mahlon L. Walters, Jefferson, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the willful and negligent burning of woodland; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.

Our able State’s Attorney has confessed error herein on the grounds that the information does not properly charge any offense.

It is evident from the record that both the State and the appellant considered that this was a prosecution under Article 1321, Penal Code. We arrive at this conclusion because the complaint and information were drawn in compliance with Willson’s Criminal Forms, Section 575, and appellant’s brief discusses said article.

Article 1388b-l, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which became effective in 1939, Acts 1939, 46th Legislature, page 242, as amended by Acts 1947, 50th Legislature, page 947, chapter 404, § 1, superseded Article 1321; and prosecution herein, on August 29, 1951, should have been under said amended article and not under Article 1321, which 'had been repealed by implication.

The information herein would not support a conviction under the terms of Article 1388b-l in that it fails to charge that the woods in question were “on land of which he is not in possession or control at the time of setting such fire”. Powell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 586.

Further, this conviction cannot be supported under Article 1388b-l because the fine assessed herein is in the sum of $50.00, and the minimum fine provided by such article is $100.00. In Rutherford v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 605, 187 S.W. 481, in reversing a case where the punishment was less than the minimum, we held that no court in this State could assess a punishment that the law does not authorize.

the information of the bar, we call attention to two recent enactments of the Legislature, Articles 1321a and 1321b, which became effective on September 6, 1951 (8 days after the proceedings herein were had), and which, in our judgment, in-inas a charge of willful or negligent setting fire to woods, forest, grass or brush lands, repealed Article 1388b-l.

Because of the defect in the information, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AR6, as follows:

     1. I am a duly appointed and qualified First Vice President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 29, 2005.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                         -------------------------------------
                         Thomas G. Lehmann
                         First Vice President
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, BellSouth Debenture-Backed
          Series 2002-8 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K
          containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report of the Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
          reports is included in these reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
          obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2006


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
----------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Senior Vice President
#### John Byrnes, Appellant, v W. Norman Scott, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on November 21, 1989, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On or about February 27, 1981, when the underlying medical malpractice action was commenced by the plaintiff against defendants Dr. W. Norman Scott and Lenox Hill Hospital, CPLR 308 (2) required that service of the summons on a person of suitable age and discretion at a defendant’s place of business be followed by "mailing the summons to the person to be served at his last known residence.” In 1987, the statute was amended (L 1987, ch 115) to permit the mailing to be made to the defendant at his actual place of business. Thus, prior to the 1987 amendment, mailing of the process to the defendant’s business address, rather than to the defendant’s last known residence, as plaintiff admittedly did in the case at bar, was a jurisdictional defect which mandated dismissal of the complaint *(Connell v Hayden,*83 AD2d 30, 34).

We also find that the IAS court did not err in refusing to give retroactive effect to the amendment to CPLR 308 (2) on the authority of *Dorfman v Leidner*(150 AD2d 935, 936, *lv granted*75 NY2d 705), wherein it was held that the amendment should not be given retroactive effect because the defendant had a vested right in the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction which may not be impaired by retrospective application of the amendment. *(Accord, Davidson v Community Gen. Hosp.,*158 AD2d 748, *lv granted*75 NY2d 711.) Concur— Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59233-59234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25443]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Excepted Service

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This gives notice of positions placed or revoked under 
Schedules A and B in the excepted service, as required by Civil Service 
Rule VI, Exceptions from the Competitive Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Reid, Staffing Policy Division, 
Employment Service (202) 606-0830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Personnel Management publishes 
this monthly notice to update appointing authorities established or 
revoked under the Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR 213. Individual 
authorities established or revoked under Schedules A and B between 
August 1, 2000, and August 31, 2000, appear in the following listing. A 
consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 is published 
annually.

Schedule A

    No Schedule A authorities were established or revoked during August 
2000.

Schedule B

    The following Schedule B authority was amended effective August 17, 
2000.
Schedule B 213.3209
    ``(a) Not to exceed six interdisciplinary positions for the 
Airpower Research Institute at the Air University, Maxwell Air Force 
Base, Alabama, for employment to complete studies proposed by 
candidates and acceptable to the Air Force. Initial appointments are 
made not to exceed 3 years, with an option to renew or extend the 
appointments in increments of 1, 2, or 3 years indefinitely 
thereafter.''

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 
Comp., P.218.


[[Page 59234]]


Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-25443 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M