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 Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|West Virginia Nonassociated 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                                                                                                                            | 900    | 6      | 1      | 1      | 73     | 6      | 769    | 2      | 164    | 55    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 909    | 244    | 280    | 48     | 1,823  | 849    | 982    | 1,279  | 1,124  | 380   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 469    | 616    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6135** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BARRINGTON ISAACS, a/k/a Orville Griswold , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:98

- cr - 00356

- DCN

- 3 )

Submitted : May 20, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Barrington Isaacs , Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake , Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Peter Thomas Phillips , Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, fo r Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Barrington Isaacs appeals the district court ’ s order s denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing and denying his
motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the recor d and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v.

Isaacs , No. 2:98

- cr - 00356

- DCN

- 3 (D.S.C. Dec. 16, 2013 & Jan. 8,
2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi als
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 540 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 540

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to issue a medal to honor veterans 
 of the Armed Forces who died after their service in the Vietnam War, 
 but whose deaths were a direct result of their service in the Vietnam 
                                  War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2011

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to issue a medal to honor veterans 
 of the Armed Forces who died after their service in the Vietnam War, 
 but whose deaths were a direct result of their service in the Vietnam 
                                  War.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``In Memory Medal for Forgotten 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. MEDAL TO HONOR VETERANS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO DIED AS A 
              RESULT OF THEIR SERVICE IN THE VIETNAM WAR.

    (a)  Medal Authorized.--There is established a medal, to be known 
as the ``Jesus (Chuchi) Salgado Medal'', to be issued by the Secretary 
of Defense to honor each veteran of the Armed Forces--
            (1) who served in the Vietnam War;
            (2) who died after serving in the war, but whose death is 
        determined by the Secretary of Defense to be a direct result of 
        that service; and
            (3) whose name is not eligible for placement on the 
        memorial wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (as defined in 
        section 5(f) of Public Law 96-297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note), as 
        added by section 1 of Public Law 106-214 (114 Stat. 336)).
    (b) Application and Design.--The Secretary of Defense shall issue 
the Jesus (Chuchi) Salgado Medal upon receipt of an application for the 
medal, submitted in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary 
prescribes. The medal shall be of an appropriate design approved by the 
Secretary.
    (c) Issuance to Representative of Deceased.--The Jesus (Chuchi) 
Salgado Medal shall be issued to the next-of-kin or representative of a 
veteran described in subsection (a), as designated by the Secretary of 
Defense.
    (d) Assistance From the Department of Veterans Affairs.--The 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall make available to the Secretary of 
Defense such records, and otherwise provide such assistance, as the 
Secretary of Defense may require for purposes of carrying out this 
section.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41666

ABRAHAM CAMPOS , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

JERILYNN YENNE, District Attorney for Brazoria County, Texas , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CV

- 284

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM : * Abraham Campos, Texas prisoner # 721237, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Campos argues that he stated a claim for a denial of due process based on the State’s refusal to release evidence for DNA testing. Campos has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal u nder 28 U.S.C . § 1915( b )

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41666 Document: 00514200925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2017No. 16

- 41666

2 or that his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Skinner v. Switzer , 562 U.S. 521, 534 (2011); Dist. Att ’ ys Office for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne , 557 U.S. 52, 67

- 68 (2009) ; Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Even if DNA testing would show that Campos ’ s blood was not found on any of the listed evidence, such evidence would not be sufficient to overcome the evidence presented against him at trial. The testimony at trial was clear that Campos was not bleeding when he was arrested on the night of the murder. After detailing the evidence against Campos, the district court stated that the DNA evidence in question would not have cast any doubt on that
evidence and would have cor roborated the testimony that Campos was not bleeding at the time of his arrest. Campos has produced nothing to contradict
this conclusion. Campos’s motion for leave to proceed IFP therefore is
DENIED. The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextrica bly intertwined with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS

. 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. The district court’s dismissal and the dismissal of this appeal count as

two strike s for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763

- 64 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Campos that if he accumulates thre e strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMIS SED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Case: 16-41666 Document: 00514200925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2017
Exhibit 99.1



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT





Board of Directors

The Standard Register Company

Dayton, Ohio



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of June 29, 2003 and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the thirteen and twenty-six week periods ended June 29, 2003 and June 30, 2002.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.



We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based upon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of December 29, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 12, 2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 29, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/S/

BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP



BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP



July 22, 2003
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5473 

To suspend temporarily the duty on frit rings composed of dysprosium oxide, 

dysprosium monosilicate, and mullite. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on frit rings composed 

of dysprosium oxide, dysprosium monosilicate, and mullite. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FRIT RINGS COMPOSED OF DYSPROSIUM 

4 OXIDE, DYSPROSIUM MONOSILICATE, AND 

5 MULLITE. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5473 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Frit rings composed of 

dysprosium oxide, dysprosium monosilicate, and 

mullite (CAS Nos. 12161– 

58–9, 235–295–7, 1302– 

93–8, 215–113–2, 1308– 

87–8, and 215–164–0) 

(provided for in sub-heading 8539.90.00) ................. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1252 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 46 ) ll-B- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 2

Printed 5/21/200811:46.01 AM

Sheet 46 of 184P. 2

MEMORANDU M DATE : Augus t 28 , 199 1 TO : HO

NProjec t Fil e FROM : Juli e Ann e Prober t SUBJECT : Annua l Electricit y/Co^t s fo r Motor s tha t Powe r Fan s i n

a Vapo r Collectio n Systemfo r Transfe r Loading Rack s Th e purpos e o f thi s memorandu mi s t o documen t th e assumption s mad e i n estimating th e electricit ycost s fo r operating th e moto r tha t power s th e fan i n a vapo r collectio n systemfo r transfe r racks . Cost s ar e presente d a s a functio n o f ven t strea

m flowrate , pressur e drop throughpiping , an d hour s o f operation . Pressur e drop i s a functio n o f th e distanc e betwee n th e transfe r rac k an d th e contro l device . Th e fan an

d moto r mus t operat e during loading operation s an d fo r a time afterwar d t o remov e VO C vapor s tha t evaporat e fro m residua l liqui d i n th e loading arms . A s a conservativ e estimate , i t i s assume d tha t th e fan an d moto r wil l operat e fo r a perio d twic e tha t o f actua l loading operations . Equation s fo r estimating th e capita l cos t o f th e fan an d moto r ar e presente d i n a separat e memorandum .

t^gn n ^2 1P. 3

&<Srj8l2 > <S)Ra'7l!® M CALCULATIO N SHEE T
< f irtMATtrapWN'i . j

P~TXV ; /^^\

i ^^ ~DATE , CHECKED , pu n icr /

W OK \

Ini ^ S-t-Clr

^ JOB NO CALC . NO .
, DAT E SUBJECT

J 

### gety\ain/ ) Cosb s -fey

- UOVT ^ 

### S 

# r SHEET= _ 0F = .SHEET S 

## ClAixp V 3>; o f M^JL

## Q/VQPS Co^-W . Cost MA^LXA X

## <?L«£Ws \ 6[e.c4war ^ rv\p- W€ -(-fl c i €v-t

C " > "TlrU , »wob/ - i ^ "HAJL . \l&J{?Ovx C^>[\tcJrioy\ SvxsUirv o , &> r <X - ^a-.*2£ ^ vrvCU L
V^LStduU ^ llflLMte t1 W-VUc . ...lofirVfiUvvA . ..flUOVxC , j i __ . .. . J

_;



# . . of. . io.D^o^/miAsA. I^J., _ + L!,„ . . j U. _s?

Co^ b &/ - .M^>Hvr

_.^Ls : , . : : . : '. ..... . : J.. - , ,— .



### oU&Q i _. j _ j j _ j ; . . l^vA/L/ ' 

## ^ ^8fl& ) _; 

## J .

._ . AjckUib^: : _L_j__ i L.. ' \£TM.L/^Jl^Hap l A ^W s 

## w^pja-s?- ! '...' : j j

_! : J i 1 1 L 

# dctinte , ' \urb : 2E,m L CfcjJ^^ ^ ffi^&citeiiLUfe^U J . t£~\ i • ii 

### H> J Rlifccfc* . 8
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5531 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5531

 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on woven fabrics of polyester 
   staple fibers mixed mainly with or solely with man-made filaments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on woven fabrics of polyester 
   staple fibers mixed mainly with or solely with man-made filaments.

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

SECTION 1. WOVEN FABRICS OF POLYESTER STAPLE FIBERS MIXED MAINLY WITH 
              OR SOLELY WITH MAN-MADE FILAMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00         Woven fabrics of   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          polyester staple                                                  12/31/2015
                          fibers mixed
                          mainly with or
                          solely with man-
                          made filaments
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5515.12.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Bumgardner Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

TYWON W. BRISCOE OPINION BY v. Record No. 1963-96-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. JANUARY 27, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Arthur B. Vieregg, Jr., Judge Steven D. Briglia (Briglia & Hundley, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

On appeal from his conviction for aggravated malicious wounding and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Tywon W. Briscoe contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that he would be ineligible for parole. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. On August 7, 1995, Briscoe shot Luis Glaize. A jury convicted Briscoe of aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The trial court instructed the jury that the penalty range for aggravated malicious wounding is twenty years to "imprisonment for life." During deliberations, the jury sent the trial court a note asking: (1) Please provide definition (in number of years) of "Imprisonment for life"? (2) When is the eligibility of parole for a 20 year sentence?- 2 - In response to the first question, the trial court replied: "'Imprisonment for life' means the plain, common definition of those words." As to the second question, the trial court replied: You should impose such punishment as you think is just under the evidence and within the instructions of the Court. You are not to concern yourselves with what may happen afterwards.

The jury fixed Briscoe's punishment at thirty-two years in prison for aggravated malicious wounding and three years for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. By final order, the trial court imposed these sentences. Our decision in this case is controlled by Mosby v.

Commonwealth , 24 Va. App. 284, 482 S.E.2d 72 (1997). In Mosby , we held that a trial court is not required to instruct the jury on a defendant's eligibility for parole in non-capital cases.

Id. at 286, 482 S.E.2d at 72. "Parole ineligibility" is not based upon a defendant's character, culpability, or the nature of the offense, and is not, therefore, relevant to punishment.

Walker v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 50, 66, 486 S.E.2d 126, 134 (1997). The trial court instructed the jurors that "imprisonment for life" is self-explanatory and that they should not concern themselves with what might occur in the future. These responses to the jury's inquiries were proper. See Clagett v.

Commonwealth , 252 Va. 79, 94, 472 S.E.2d 263, 272 (1996); Clark- 3 - v. Commonwealth , 220 Va. 201, 214, 257 S.E.2d 784, 792 (1979);

Hinton v. Commonwealth , 219 Va. 492, 247 S.E.2d 704 (1978). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.
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.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC.

AND ZTE (TX), INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

PATENT CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A 

PETITION FOR INTER-PARTES REVIEW 

Pursuant to the Court’s Published Standard Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Case 

(“Order Governing Proceedings, version 3.3”),1 namely General Issue No. 4, Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development hereby provides notice that 

Defendants ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc. filed a petition requesting 

inter-partes review of the patent in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,147,071, on March 26, 2021. See

IPR2021-00695, attached as Exhibit A.

April 8, 2021 PTAB issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded

October 8, 2021 PTAB decision on institution expected

October 8, 2022 If PTAB trial instituted, then PTAB final written 

decision expected

1 See https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Standing%20Orders/Waco/Albright/Order%20Governing%20Proceedings%20-

%20Patent%20Cases%20022321.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00492-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 2
Dated: April 9, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan Loveless

James L. Etheridge 

Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeffrey Huang

Brian M. Koide

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jhuang@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brian@EtheridgeLaw.com

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 the U.S. District Court [LIVE]-Document Filing System to all counsel of record on April 9, 

2021.

/s/ Ryan Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00492-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 2