alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                       
|View History:                                                                                              
|                                                                                                           
|Louisiana Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                           
|Louisiana Nonassociated 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                                                                                                                            | 702    | 782    | 669    | 464    | 572    | 355    | 713    | 1,589  | 1,300  | 87    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 792    | 5,509  | 267    | 1,382  | 4,471  | 461    | 3,436  | 3,112  | 1,093  | 7,188 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,136  | 13,300 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
* 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 January 3, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50376 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VALENTIN HIDALGO-PERALTA, also known as Valentine Hidalgo-Peralta; GADIEL HIDALGO-PERALTA, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-2025-4-DB

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court appointed counsel for Valentin Hidalgo-Peralta has moved for leave to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hidalgo-Peralta has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record discloses one possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Hidalgo-Peralta may have an argument that Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004) invalidates his sentence. However, Hidalgo-Peralta’s sentenceNo. 04-50376 -2- was based on the statutory minimum sentence, not the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and this court has held that Blakely does not apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (July 14, 2004). Nonetheless, counsel could have raised a potential Blakely issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
See McKnight v. General Motors Corp. , 511 U.S. 659, 660 (1994). Because our independent review of the record has revealed this possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny counsel’smotion to withdraw. By denying the motion to withdraw, HidalgoPeralta has preserved the Blakely issue for further review. We pretermit further briefing, however, in light of Pineiro , and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1

                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                  I, Janice Ott Rotunno, a duly elected and acting officer of
J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby
certify on behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

                  1. I have reviewed and examined the performance by the
Indenture Trustee of the application of trust money collected by the Indenture
Trustee pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Indenture under which the Trust's notes
(the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 (the
"Relevant Year"); and

                  2. Based upon my review and examination described in 1 above,
and except as provided in the information furnished by the Indenture Trustee for
purposes of the auditor's report delivered pursuant to Section 2.2(a)(x) of the
Amended and Restated Administrative Services Agreement dated as of April 27,
2004, between AMACAR Pacific Corp. and Allstate Life Global Funding, to the best
of my knowledge, the application of trust money collected by the Indenture
Trustee pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Indenture was performed in accordance
with the terms of the Indenture throughout the Relevant Year.


J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association, as Indenture Trustee


By:       /s/ Janice Ott Rotunno
         -----------------------------------
         Name:  Janice Ott Rotunno
         Title:  Vice President


Date:    March 27, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2016

No. 04-16-00268-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.R. AND S.M.R., Children,

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PA-00858

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal. Although the reporter’s record was due on May 9, 2016, no 

reporter’s record has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b). We, therefore, ORDER the court 

reporter to file the reporter’s record on or before May 23, 2016.

If the reporter’s record is not received by such date, an order may be issued directing the 

court reporter to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file 

the record. No motions for extension of time will be granted absent extenuating circumstances. 

See id. 35.3(c).

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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-AR7, 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
### 846 

# I kJ **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS d**  **AUSTIN OROVLR** 

**sLLL=I)***

**Honor&bla Goorgo**  **H. Shopwrd**  Comptroller of Pub110Acoountr **Au&in,** 

### TeMr D&r **Slrt**

aertltlcats rhevlng the p the dlrtriat **alark** of -118 County onorrblr **Tarry** Dlckrnr,D18trlct Judge
394, **OM Of**  **thS 8tWXt@8**  **fO?8bg thS**  ho 8t8t8, **wk.8** pro+iSiOa iOr th. On**VitM8808 in**  **&@08WU tioM**  **UUder thO88**  **3AV8.** The **rrtlcle** prOvid88 **t&t** 'lo **ti8e th** **” S-to**  **18** th,plrtr **38f&UO8tl~ thV**  wSQM1 attO-no. of 8uoh **VitRO88.8,** 8UOh l mMa8 8br11 k fild in the UU **UM8C b8**  **008t8 in**  **fblOnJ ~8678.** **”**

**It** follovr thereiors, 8nd you 8rv 80bdvlred that you &re

# l

thorl;ed by Uv to py the vhvrlff'8CO848Honorable George H. Shappard, pge 2

**in que8tion**  **out of**  the judiciary

### l **ppropri4tioa set**  aside for the wy8hSQt Of 8hWlff8 aO8t8 in fSlOily COSe8. We returnhsrevlth the 

### sharlli'r

## certificate. Very truly your8 ATTORHEI[

OBXE?tALOF TEXAS

U ‘-. Elbirt lioowr
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-3O-1998
<CASH>                                         617,094
<SECURITIES>                                10,066,012
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,263,272
<PP&E>                                         264,024
<DEPRECIATION>                               (203,483)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             (15,097,042)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,431,633
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        271
<COMMON>                                       130,750
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,534,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,523,773
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,828,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (444,859)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,383,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,383,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,383,353)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 24631.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1950.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1950.

Burt Barr, Dallas, Leland Johnson, Dallas, A. S. Baskett, Dallas, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty and assessed a punishment of twenty-five years in the penitentiary for the murder of Gertrude Simms. The jury rejected his claim of self-defense and by assessing such punishment disposed of his application for suspension of sentence.

The killing occurred at Lightner’s Cafe on Leonard Street in Dallas after midnight. Appellant and the deceased became involved in a dispute about the use of the restroom which seemed to be available for use by both men and women. The deceased, a woman, struck appellant across the cheek or nose during this dispute.

The proprietor was called who asked appellant or both appellant and the deceased to get out. Appellant went to the vicinity of the front door, and noticed that his nose was bleeding.

The deceased followed him within the cafe proper, and appellant caught her and inflicted wounds upon her with a knife, from which wounds she shortly thereafter died.

Appellant ran from the scene and the proprietor fired at him as he ran. He was arrested the following morning, and made a written confession to the officer which was admitted in evidence without objection.

No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the facts to support the verdict of the jury.

Appellant, by his Bills of Exception Nos. 1, 2 and 14, questions the admissibility of evidence given by the undertaker concerning wounds found by him on the body of the deceased, and the expression of an opinion by such witness as to the effect of such wounds. His objections were based on the claim that the witness was not shown to be qualified to give such testimony.

The witness detailed his education and experience as an undertaker. He testified as to the facts upon which he based the opinions expressed by him.

The court was warranted in finding that the witness was qualified, and the objection was properly overruled. The objection went more to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility.

Other bills of exception were to questions permitted to be answered over appellant’s objections, and to sustaining of obj ections by the State to questions propounded by appellant. The State was properly permitted to prove the facts concerning the location and position of the body after the killing, and no harm is shown to appellant in the manner of such proof. These *569bills, as qualified by the court, fail to show error.

The judgment is affirmed.

HAWKINS, P. J., absent.

Opinion approved by the Court.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-31,536-07 

EX PARTE ROBERT ALAN FRATTA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 1195044

IN THE 230TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam. 

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the

provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5 and a motion to stay

Applicant’s execution.1

In June 2009, a jury convicted Applicant of the offense of capital murder for the

death of his estranged wife. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a). The jury answered

1

 Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles in this order refer to the Code of

Criminal Procedure.
Fratta - 2

the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 and the trial court, accordingly, set

Applicant’s punishment at death. 

This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal, denied

habeas relief on his initial Article 11.071 writ application, and dismissed his first and

second subsequent Article 11.071 applications as abuses of the writ. Fratta v. State, No.

AP-76,188 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2011) (not designated for publication); Ex parte

Fratta, No. WR-31,536-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2014) (not designated for

publication); Ex parte Fratta, No. WR-31,536-05 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2021) (not

designated for publication); Ex parte Fratta, No. WR-31,536-06 (Tex. Crim. App. May

25, 2022) (not designated for publication). 

This Court received this, Applicant’s third subsequent Article 11.071 application

for a writ of habeas corpus, on December 15, 2022. However, the pleading does not

comply with the rules. Effective August 1, 2022, this Court amended Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.4(i) (length of documents) to limit an Article 11.071 subsequent

application to “37,500 words if computer-generated, and 125 pages if not.” Applicant’s

writ application is 251 pages long – more than double the allowed length.

Therefore, Applicant has until December 27, 2022, to file an amended application

with the convicting court in a form that complies with the rules or to show good cause to

this Court why he should be allowed to file a longer pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 20th

 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022.
Fratta - 3

Do Not Publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Lenz, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered May 19, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

Defendant cannot now complain of his adjudication as a second felony offender. He did not controvert the predicate felony statement although he was given the opportunity to do so; therefore, any question as to whether his prior conviction in Nebraska for robbery is equivalent to a felony conviction in New York has not been preserved for our review *(see, People v Smith,*73 NY2d 961; *People v Blackwell,*151 AD2d 686).

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Ohio Shale Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Ohio Shale Proved 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      |        |        | 0      | 42     | 1,409  | 0      | 2,919  | 7,212  | 8,182 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,598  | 349    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Nadav Kidron, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Oramed
      Pharmaceuticals Inc. for the annual period ended August 31, 2007 (the
      "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.                                                                        

Dated: December 12, 2007



*/s/ Nadav Kidron*
  Nadav Kidron 
  President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 
  Principal Executive 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 Oramed
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and will be retained by Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. RODRICKA JERMAINE GAMBRELL, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:06-cr-01094-GRA)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have

reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v.

Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree , 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons

stated there. See United States v. Gambrell , No. 6:06-cr-01094- GRA (D.S.C. June 5, 2009). Further, we deny Gambrell’s motion for transcripts at Government expense. 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.

AFFIRMED