alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Indiana Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Indiana Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 6      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|- = 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
#### BENTLEY v. MOORE, Justice of Peace.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1951.

V. R. Bentley, Pikeville, for petitioner.

L. D. May, Pikeville, for respondent.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from this Court to prohibit the respondent, justice of the peace of Pike County, from proceeding to. try petitioner on a charge of possessing alcoholic beverages in dry territory for the purpose of sale. The ground on which the writ is sought is that the justice of the peace improperly refused to grant a change of venue to the quarterly court, for which' petitioner had applied on motion and affidavit alleging that the justice of the peace would not afford petitioner a fair and impartial trial, and that the justice of the peace was prejudiced because he was dependent upon *238fines, fees and costs for his compensation. The response to the petition merely alleges that the justice of the peace had entered an order waiving his costs in the action.

This Court will grant a writ of prohibition against a court inferior to the circuit court only when the inferior court is proceeding erroneously within its jurisdiction, great and irreparable injury will result from the action of the inferior court, and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Franklin v. Pursiful, 295 Ky. 222, 173 S.W.2d 131; Potter v. Trivette, 303 Ky. 216, 197 S.W.2d 245. If the inferior court is proceeding outside of its jurisdiction, the writ must be sought in the circuit court. Section 479, Civil Code of Practice. The filing of a motion and affidavit for change of venue does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Rush v. Denhardt, 138 Ky. 238, 127 S.W. 785. Therefore, it was proper for the petition for a writ of prohibition in this case to be addressed to this Court, rather than the circuit court.

It it not necessary for us to decide whether the justice of the peace erred in denying *the*change of venue, because it clearly appears that the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal if there was error. The minimum penalty for possessing alcoholic beverages in dry territory for purpose of sale is a fine of $20 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days. KRS 242.990. Under Section 362 of the Criminal Code of Practice, a defendant has the right of appeal to the circuit court if the punishment is imprisonment or a fine of $20 or more, and under Section 364 of the Criminal Code of Practice he may supersede the judgment pending appeal.

This Court has held on at least two occasions that a writ will not issue to *prohibit*a change of venue in a criminal case, where there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Fish v. Benton, 138 Ky. 644, 128 S.W. 1067; Manning v. Baxter, 281 Ky. 659, 136 S.W.2d 1074. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply where the writ is sought to *compel*a change of venue.

The petitioner’s motion for a' writ of prohibition is overruled, and his petition is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest McCoy, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered on December 17, 1987, convicting defendant, after trial by jury, of murder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life on the murder counts to be served concurrently with concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years on the remaining counts, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was implicated in the slaying for hire of two drug dealers who had robbed a rival drug location. At the first trial of this matter, the jury found defendant guilty of the charges relating to possession of a weapon but deadlocked on the murder counts of the indictment. He was subsequently convicted of those counts at a retrial.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). The jury had the responsibility of resolving any inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses and, while defendant’s testimony conflicted with the testimony offered by the People, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, was also to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84).

*197Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s evidentiary rulings, most of which were not objected to at trial, did not deprive him of a fair trial. Nor was the sentence imposed unduly harsh or excessive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                             
|                                                                                                          
|Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                          
|Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Acquisitions (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                                                                                                                            | 101    | 81     | 328    | 289    | 381    | 612    | 218    | 987    | 520    | 75    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 107    | 645    | 741    | 895    | 2,069  | 15     | 1,898  | 695    | 188    | 72    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 671    | 76     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Texas--RRC District 4 onsh Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Texas--RRC District 4 onsh 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 78    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 565    | 2,611  | 3,091  | 4,377  | 4,991  | 4,558  | 11,001 | 12,861 | 13,953 | 12,486
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 11,396 | 14,235 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GUY PRESTON HALE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:02-cr-00172-ALL; 2:04-cv-01037) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy Preston Hale, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Philip Henry Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Guy Preston Hale, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hale 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 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

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Defendant.

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00454-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00456-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00457-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00458-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00460-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00461-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00462-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00463-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00464-ADA

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-00465-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF J. HOKE PEACOCK III

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, J. Hoke Peacock III enters his 

appearance in this matter as counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing 

and Development. He may receive communications from the Court and all parties at: 

J. Hoke Peacock III

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP

1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100

Houston, Texas 77002-5096

Telephone: (713) 651-9366

Facsimile: (713) 654-6666

Email: tpeacock@susmangodfrey.com

Dated: January 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

By: /s/ J. Hoke Peacock III

J. Hoke Peacock III

Texas Bar. No. 15673980

Max L. Tribble, Jr.

Texas Bar No. 2021395

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 102 Filed 01/13/22 Page 1 of 2
2

Shawn Blackburn (pro hac vice)

Texas Bar No. 24089989

1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100

Houston, Texas 77002-5096

Telephone: (713) 651-9366

Facsimile: (713) 654-6666

tpeacock@susmangodfrey.com

mtribble@susmangodfrey.com

sblackburn@susmangodfrey.com

Kalpana Srinivasan

California Bar No. 237460

Anna Catherine Coll (pro hac vice)

California Bar No. 337548

1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-6029

Telephone: (310) 789-3100

Facsimile: (310) 789-3150

ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

acoll@susmangodfrey.com

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a 

Brazos Licensing and Development

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on January 13, 2022, I electronically filed this document 

with the Clerk of Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing 

to all counsel of record, all of whom have consented to electronic service in this action.

/s/ J. Hoke Peacock III

J. Hoke Peacock III

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 102 Filed 01/13/22 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.A** **CERTIFICATION**     I, James C. Yardley, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of Southern Natural Gas Company;     2. Based on my knowledge, this Report 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 with respect to the period covered by this Report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this Report, fairly    present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this Report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure    controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this Report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 7, 2007 /s/  *James    C. Yardley*    James C. Yardley    Chairman of the Board and President    (Principal Executive Officer)    Southern Natural Gas Company
<TABLE>
                                                                                              EXHIBIT 11
                               THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                             STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS
                                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA)
<CAPTION>
                                CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE


                                                            THREE MONTHS               NINE MONTHS
                                                         ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,       ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                       ------------------------  ------------------------
                                                            1996         1995         1996         1995
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net earnings .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  $    37,686  $    49,647  $    73,562  $    85,443
Add interest on Convertible Debt, net of tax  .  .  .        2,105         -           6,270         -
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Net earnings applicable to common
    stock and equivalents outstanding.  .  .  .  .  .  $    39,791  $    49,647  $    79,832  $    85,443
                                                       ===========  ===========  ===========  ===========

Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .      409,923      409,923      409,923      409,923
Weighted average number of common shares
    issuable upon conversion of Convertible Debt .  .       72,112         -          72,112         -
Dilutive effect of stock options after application
    of treasury stock method.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         -            -              99         -
                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average number of common shares
   and equivalents outstanding .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .      482,035      409,923      482,134      409,923
                                                       ===========  ===========  ===========  =========== 

Net earnings per common share and equivalents
    (Primary and Fully Diluted).  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         $.08         $.12         $.17         $.21
                                                              ====         ====         ====         ====




                                                           Tab 2
</TABLE>
#### Joseph B. Ferguson, Jr., Respondent, *v.*Vaughan Imported Cars Inc., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 29, 1957.

*189
      *John jE. Jones*for appellants.

*Paul Wolfe*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Section 233 of the Beal Property Law requires the person *to*whom the deposit is given to hold it in trust and not to mingle it with the personal moneys of the person holding the same. The requirement is not only that the person shall not mingle the money with his own but he shall hold on to it actually or constructively. Placing the money received by the landlord as security in the name of another living person is not a holding within the requirements of this section.

The final order and judgment should be modified by directing judgment in favor of the tenant on the counterclaim for conversion, and as modified final order and judgment affirmed, without costs.

Hoestadter, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Final order and judgment modified, etc.