alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|U.S. Domestic Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Barge (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|U.S. Domestic Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Barge (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         | 130,504 | 128,195 | 137,996 | 154,279 | 136,483 | 122,263 | 140,164 | 126,081 | 114,031
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 105,700 | 111,900 | 124,785 | 117,956 | 117,668 | NA      | 83,764  | NA      | 66,995  | 64,261 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 59,367  | 56,196  | 55,984  | 62,376  | 49,282  | 45,353  | 43,971  | 41,624  | 48,363  | 61,601 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 46,110  | 69,412  | 151,201 | 213,733 | 244,274 | 195,218 | 164,559 | 148,484 | 137,733 | 154,224
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 107,905 | 95,126  | 128,334 | 107,877 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### GRAY v. STATE.

No. 21807.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1941.

Allison & Gordon, of Levelland, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

. GRAVES, Judge.-

Appellant was indicted for theft of property over the value of fifty dollars, by means *527bf a false pretext, and given a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.

The facts show that Victor Williams was a truck and tractor dealer; that he had obtained some hegari in a trade with John Abbey, and this feed was left in Abbey’s field in stacks, with instructions from Williams to Abbey to sell the same for the sum of $5 per ton. Appellant finally offered to buy about 25 tons of this feed, and with the consent of Mr. Abbey he hauled away about 25 tons thereof. It was contended by Abbey that appellant promised to pay Williams for this feed, as he obtained it; Williams contended that Abbey was to collect for such feed as same was taken away or sold. It inferentially appears from the record that neither had received any pay therefor, nor had appellant ever paid for any of same. There is also some intimation in the facts that at least a portion of such feed was moldy and worthless. ■

Evidently the State relied upon the obtaining of possession of this property by means of a false pretext, and that pretext was that appellant would pay Williams for the feed after he had gotten it. -

It is also only shown by inference that Mr. Williams was not paid for his feed. There is no absolute statement to that effect.

We do not think these facts are sufficient to predicate a verdict upon, showing beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time possession of this property was taken‘by appellant he did not intend to pay for the same, as set forth in the latter portion of Art. 1413, P.C.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Manufacturers’ Services Limited (the“Company”) for the period ended September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,Robert C. Bradshaw, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Albert A.Notini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;an

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|                      | /s/ Robert C. Bradshaw   |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
| Dated: November 13,  2002 | Robert C. Bradshaw       |
|                      | Chief Executive  Officer |
|                      |                     |
|                      | /s/ Albert A. Notini     |   |
| Dated: November 13,  2002 | Albert A. Notini         |
|                      | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1708

KENNETH RINGO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), in his official capacity and his officer, agents and successors, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1243-A) Submitted: November 20, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Ringo, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ringo appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee denying his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended , 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). We affirm. We review an award of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, stated from the bench following a full hearing. 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

RICHARD L. LUFT, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00289-O-BP

 §

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, §

§

Defendant. §

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 

41) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED on this 29th day of June, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00289-O Document 50 Filed 06/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2272
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SAMUEL REAVES, TDCJ No. 2363039,

Petitioner,

VS.

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0536-G-BN

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. An objection was filed by Petitioner. The District

Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and

recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the

court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge.

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings,

and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The court

Case 3:22-cv-00536-G-BN Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 177
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has

failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this

court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000).*

But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must pay the appellate

filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

* Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended

effective on December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a

final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the

final order, the court may direct the parties to submit

arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the

court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific

issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the

parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate

from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not

extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under

these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if

the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-00536-G-BN Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 178
SO ORDERED.

April 5, 2022.

________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-00536-G-BN Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 179
| (logo) Wells

           Fargo | Corporate Trust Services 

MAC R1204-010

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel: 410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

375 PARK AVE FL 2

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

NEW YORK, New York 10152-0002

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-LC18, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-LC18

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Adminstrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF
DATASTREAM SYSTEMS, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Datastream Systems, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned C. Alex Estevez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | 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 the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ C. ALEX ESTEVEZC. Alex Estevez President and Chief Financial Officer Datastream Systems, Inc. Date: March 23, 2005
Case 3:22-cr-00200-L Document 39 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 24 , 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 00 879

- CV

____________
JOEY MORALES , Appellant

V.

GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORER, LTD., GREG BRANNON AND GLOBAL

GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES, INC. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 52365



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 5, 2011 . The notice of appeal was

filed on October 5, 2011 . To date, our records show that appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring
payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements
for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the
Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict2

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2 007) (listing fees in court of
appeals); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same).

On December 15, 2011 , this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing f ee
on or before December 30, 2011 , or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant ha s not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3 (c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to
comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within s pecified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.
Environmental Statement

Emission to the air: The level of emission to the air is estimated to be very low (the substance has a low to 

negligible vapour pressure) and the duration so brief that they will have no significant influence on the 

external environment. The major risk of emissions to the air is dust formation when dosing the anhydrides 

to the reactor. For working environmental reasons, these chemicals will be dosed while there is a slight 

vacuum on the reactor. In case of dust problems, a dust filter will be installed at the exhaust.

Emission to the air during reaction is also considered to be very limited. The reaction takes place in a closed 

reactor with airing through a small duct. There is no mechanical exhaust, and the duct only functions as a 

hyper pressure vent.

Dust explosion: The substance is a water suspension/solution. It is estimated to pose no risk of dust 

explosion.

Wastewater: The only source of wastewater is the water used for cleaning the reactor after production of 

the substance. This water will, however, be used to dilute the substance, hence there will be no emission to 

the public sewer.

Chemical waste: No chemical waste is expected. 

Stages in the import process where emissions or discharges to the environment may occur: During import 

Physical form of the substance for each location into which the substance will be released and the 

anticipated frequency, duration and rate of release:

Estimate of the fugitive emissions:

As explained above no effluent and emission is expected to be released to the environment. 

The contingency plan to deal with unintended releases from the manufacturing processes: No unintended 

release is expected, but there will be extra basins in case of spillage or leakage.

Information on any potential releases from commercial or consumer products or potential releases during 

processing by domestic customers:
CONSULTING AGREEMENT

     THIS  AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO THIS 23RD day of May,  2000, by and between
Lexon,  Inc. (LXXN) and Goodbody  International,  Inc.  (GBI).  The term of said
Agreement shall be for thirty-six (36) months.

     GBI will begin working immediately to get the LXXN story out to Wall Street
and the Investment community,  and will be available for consulting and guidance
on any matters  relating  to  investor  relations,  financial  relations,  stock
enhancement  and public  relations  and to CEO  responsibilities,  including any
financing mergers, acquisitions,  contract negotiations and the possible sale of
the  Company.  GBI will  package  and get the LXXN story out to its  database of
Investors and will follow up with telephone calls.

     LXXN agrees to run an ad in Research Magazine (cost $10,500) before the end
of the year  2002.  GBI  will  follow  up with  stockbrokers  responding  to the
Research Magazine ad.

     GBI agrees to perform  these  services  for no cash fee except  $500.00 per
month to cover phone, fax,  shipping and other expenses.  GBI will be issued a 5
year warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of LXXN common stock  exercisable at the
closing bid price on 5/10/00 ($1.625).  The warrant shall have cashless exercise
provision, reset provision and piggyback registration after ten (10) months. The
holder may exercise the warrant in a cashless exercise transaction,  if and only
if, on the Date of Exercise,  there is not then in effect a current registration
statement that covers the resale of the shares of common stock to be issued upon
exercise of said warrant.  GBI will purchase 250,000 LXXN restricted shares with
at $0.001  (par value) per share,  with  piggyback  registration  after ten (10)
months.

The parties agreeing to said terms are:

LEXON, INC.                                 GOODBODY INTERNATIONAL, INC.

BY:___/ GIFFORD M. MABIE /_____________     BY:______/ JOSEPH H. HALE /_________

TITLE:__PRESIDENT______________________     TITLE:_______CEO____________________

DATE:___5/23/00____ ___________________     DATE:____5/23/00____________________



                                          SB-2 Sequential Page Number 103 of 104
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 15-0411 

Focus Ready Draft 4/30/2015

 

ENGINEER: Prothero \ AFD 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 15-0411 

USE: Coating Metal Parts

Number of Sites/ Location: 1 

Days/yr: 48

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide 

with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.
Water or Incineration or Landfill

High End: 1.3E-1 kg/site-day over 48 days/yr from 1 site

or 6.0E+0 kg/site-yr from 1 site or 6.0E+0 kg/yr-all sites

Incineration

Output 2: 10.0E-1 kg/site-day over 48 days/yr from 1 site

or 4.8E+1 kg/site-yr from 1 site or 4.8E+1 kg/yr-all sites

RELEASE TOTAL

5.4E+1 kg/yr - all sites
#### COX v. STATE.

No. 25414.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 24, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the penalty is a fine of $100.00.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28785]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems 
(1190).
    Date and Time: December 19, 2000; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Chuan F. Chen, Program Director, Fluid, 
Dynamics & Hydraulics, Division of Chemical & Transport Systems, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 525, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 
(703) 292-8371.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY 2000 
Sensing & Imaging Panel of proposals as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28785 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00331-CR

John Darrick RITTENBERRY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B20109

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 22, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice