alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|West Virginia Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|West Virginia Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 19     | 32     | 46     | 12     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
#### Ross Roper, Respondent, v Heller-Miller Realty Corp. of New York et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance of a joint-venture agreement, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered July 5, 1989, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s first, second, and third causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks, *inter alia,*to compel specific performance of his alleged oral joint-venture agreement with the defendant corporations to develop a 100-acre parcel of land located in Suffolk County for residential use. The plaintiff alleged that the parties agreed that the material terms of the agreement would be the same as those of a previous similar joint venture in which the parties had participated. The plaintiff also asserted that the parties agreed that he had the right to transfer his interest to a nominee corporation which he would name "upon the finalization of a written agreement”. The oral agreement, however, was never reduced to writing, and the plaintiff was excluded from participation in the joint venture.

The defendants argue, *inter alia,*that because the name of the nominee corporation was never designated by the plaintiff, the oral agreement lacks a material term and cannot, therefore, be enforced. We disagree. The plaintiff’s option to transfer his interest to a nominee corporation was to become effective only at the time the oral agreement was reduced to writing. Prior to that time, the plaintiff’s interest in the oral agreement was his alone. Because the oral agreement was never reduced to writing, that agreement, in which the plaintiff himself had an interest, was sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract.

We have examined the defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that the Supreme Court correctly determined *458that triable issues exist justifying a trial. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
|ABN AMRO Series 2002 5Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to Certificateholders
for 200201 to 200212
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Class                                                                                                                       
|RI                                                                                                                          
|B 1                                                                                                                         
|B 2                                                                                                                         
|B 3                                                                                                                         
|B 4                                                                                                                         
|B 5                                                                                                                         
|IA 1                                                                                                                        
|IA 2                                                                                                                        
|IA 3                                                                                                                        
|IA 4                                                                                                                        
|IA 5                                                                                                                        
|IA 6                                                                                                                        
|IA 7                                                                                                                        
|IA 8                                                                                                                        
|IA 9                                                                                                                        
|IA P                                                                                                                        
|IIA 1                                                                                                                       
|IIA 2                                                                                                                       
|IIA P                                                                                                                       
|IIA X                                                                                                                       
|M                                                                                                                           
|RII
# FedEx® Express April 28, 2014

U.S. Department ofTransportation J::?ocket Management System 1200NewJersey Avenue SE West Building, Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Regulatory Docket#FAA-2002-12343 Extension ofExemption 6473H Legal Department 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B, 3rd Floor Memphis,TN 38125 Telephone 901.434.8600**Attach~d** is Federal Express Corporation's request for an Extension ofExemption 6473. Ifadditional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thankyou.
Sincerely, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

# ~ Lead Counsel Legal/Regulatory Affairs (901) 434-8583 FAX: (901) 434-8283

JMH/stf/588025 EnclosuresBEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION ForRenewal ofExemption 6473 from Part 121.434(c)(l)(ii) ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION FORRENEWAL OF EXEMPTION OF 6473H

Communicationwithrespectto this document should be sentto:

April 28, 2014 J. Mark Hansen Lead Counsel Regulatory Affairs FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B, 3rd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125 (BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C:

Petition of FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION for Renewal ofExemption 6473 from FAR 121.434(c)(1)(ii) oftheFederal Aviation Regulation

PETITION OFDocketNo. FAA-2002-12343

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION FORRENEWAL OF EXEMPTION FROM FAR 121.434

By letter dated February 22, 2010, Federal Express Corporation (Federal Express) petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) fqrrenewal ofan exemption from section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Federal Express requested this original exemption and subsequent renewal in order to permit an appropriately qualified and authorized check airman to observe (and substitute for the observation by a FAA inspector) a qualifying pilot in command, who is completing initial
or upgrade training specified in FAR 121.424 in the performance of prescribed duties during at least one flight leg which includes a takeoff and a landing subject to certain conditions and limitations to the extent necessary. Two extensions of the Exemption
were granted by the FAA pursuant to Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12343 which granted Federal Express the FAA Exemption Number 6473F and 6473H. The current Exemptionterminates on June 30, 2014.All of the conditions stated in Federal Express' original letter petitioning for this exemption and the conditions imposed by the Partial Grant of Exemption remain the
same. Grant ofthis extension wouldhave no adverse effect on safety. Federal Express requests that it be grantedthe exemption requested herein. Very truly yours, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

# \\1nL**~ansen** ·

Lead Counsel Regulatory Affairs FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B, 3rd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125
JMH/stf/588025
#### In the Matter of Senate Syndicate, Inc., Appellant, v New York Insurance Exchange, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), *114entered on or about February 23, 1989, denying petitioner’s cross motion for partial summary judgment, and granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner seeks a determination that it is entitled to interest upon moneys withdrawn yet unused by respondent NYIE Security Fund, Inc. from the deposit fund consisting of the aggregate $500,000 deposits which petitioner and other "Underwriting Members” of respondent New York Insurance Exchange are required to make. By definition, however, as set forth in article XIII, § 1 (b) of the constitution and bylaws which govern the Exchange and its participating members, the "Deposit Fund” consists of only those deposits remaining, "less disbursements and withdrawals therefrom.” Thus, while article XIII, §4 of the constitution and bylaws does give underwriting members such as petitioner an ownership interest in the "Deposit Fund”, that interest is limited to the extent "it may be * * * utilized * * * or called upon.” It is clear that once the deposit fund has been drawn upon in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and bylaws, the funds so withdrawn are no longer part of the deposit fund and petitioner can claim no entitlement to any part of the funds so withdrawn. Moreover, determinations as to the necessity for using the funds or the amount needed should not be disturbed where, as here, they have a rational basis. *(See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222.) Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

THOMAS C. KEWISH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT 

CORPORATION, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case No: 1:20-cv-00454

Honorable Judge Robert Pitman

REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-88 and this Honorable Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. #23), the

Parties submit the following:

1. Status of settlement negotiations: Plaintiff has issued discovery requests and a notice of 

deposition to Defendant. The parties remain in communication regarding settlement.

2. Identity of persons responsible for settlement negotiations for each party: 

a. For Plaintiff: Marwan R. Daher, counsel for Plaintiff 

b. For Defendant: A. Lee Rigby, counsel for Defendant

3. At this time, the parties do not believe that this case is ready for mediation but will reevaluate 

their positions following discovery and/or the Court’s ruling on dispositive motions. 

However, the parties believe that mediation would provide a forum to attempt meaningful 

efforts to accomplish resolution of this case, at the appropriate time, and that mediation would 

be the preferred method of ADR. Counsel for the parties certify that their respective clients 

have been informed of the ADR procedures available in the Western District of Texas. The 

parties have not agreed upon a potential mediator or mediation date. The parties believe, 

however, they will be able to mutually come to an agreement on mediation without 

necessitating involvement of the Court. 

Case 1:20-cv-00454-RP Document 25 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 3
Dated: August 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marwan R. Daher

Counsel for Plaintiff

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200

Lombard, IL 60148

Telephone: (331) 307-7646

mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com

/s/ A. Lee Rigby

Counsel for Defendant

Rigby Slack Lawrence Berger + Comerford, 

PLLC

3500 Jefferson Street, Suite 330

Austin, Texas 78731

Telephone: (512) 782-2060

lrigby@rigbyslack.com

Case 1:20-cv-00454-RP Document 25 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Plaintiff, certifies that on August 17, 2020 he 

caused a copy of the foregoing, REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, to be 

served via the Court’s electronic filing database on all parties of record.

 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Marwan R. Daher

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-00454-RP Document 25 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG-RBF   Document 71-4   Filed 09/21/21   Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Upstream Biosciences Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K (Amendment No. 1) of the Company for
          the year ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with
          the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.


Dated: May 29, 2012       By: /s/ Charles El-Moussa
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                              Charles El-Moussa
                              Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
                              Officer, President, Secretary, Treasurer and
                              Director
                              (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
                              Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Upstream Biosciences Inc. and will
be retained by Upstream Biosciences Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### GIVENS et al. v. WOODWARD et al.

No. A-1584.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 18, 1948.

Kenneth R. Lamkin, of Austin, for petitioner.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., Fagan Dickson, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jackson Littleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The record discloses that the order of the Court of Civil Appeals overruling the motion for rehearing in this cause was made on December 29, 1947. 207 S.W.2d 234. The application for writ of error was filed in that court on January 29, 1948. By the method for computing time prescribed by Rule 4, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this was thirty-one days after the overruling of the motion for rehearing. By rule 468, formerly Article 1742 of the Revised Statutes, it is required that applications for writs of error shall be filed within thirty days after the overruling of the motion for rehearing. It has long been established that this Court acquires no jurisdiction to consider an application for writ of error filed more than thirty days after the overruling of the motion for rehearing by the Court of Civil Appeals. The question is not one of discretion, but of jurisdiction. Heney v. Davidson, 119 Tex. 451, 32 S.W.2d 452; Ladd-Hannon Oil Corporation v. Tripplehorn, 118 Tex. 195, 13 S.W.2d 666; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Perkins, Tex.Com.App., 48 S.W.2d 249.

The application is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00454-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00455-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00456-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00457-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00458-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00459-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00460-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00461-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00462-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00463-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00464-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00465-ADA

WSOU’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF FINAL 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Version 3.2 of the Court’s Order Governing proceedings entered 

November 5, 2020, and in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff hereby notifies 

the Court Plaintiff has disclosed its final infringement contentions on Defendant Microsoft 

Corporation via electronic mail on April 30, 2020. 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 2
Date: May 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_____ 

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this the 3rd day of May 2021.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 68 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130996(48) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, STEVEN FATA, ANNA FATA, DENNIS Justices 

REILLY and ROSEMARY REILLY,

Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellees, 

v SC: 130996 

 COA: 257936 

Roscommon CC: 02-723576-CH 

ROSCOMMON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Counter-PlaintiffAppellant, 

and 

LYON TOWNSHIP, DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY and DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 31, 2006 

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

entered erroneously. 

d0122 

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. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7935

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT JEROME WARREN, SR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph R. Goodwin, DistrictJudge; Maurice G. Taylor, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-147, CA97-956-3) Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Jerome Warren, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Jerome Warren, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Warren ,Nos. CR-95-147; CA-97-956-3 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 2001). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

AUDREY DUFF, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-375-RP 

§

BETTY BEWLEY, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

On February 12, 2021, the parties dismissed all claims in this case by joint stipulation of 

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Dkt. 30). “Stipulated dismissals 

under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically 

upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). As nothing remains to 

resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED.

SIGNED on May 11, 2021.

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00375-RP Document 31 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 1