alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA TV to Air Russian Spacewalk Featuring the Olympic Torch","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XOoVgzSFL8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-tv-to-air-russian-spacewalk-featuring-the-olympic-torch\/\">NASA TV to Air Russian Spacewalk Featuring the Olympic Torch<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-tv-to-air-russian-spacewalk-featuring-the-olympic-torch\/embed\/#?secret=XOoVgzSFL8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA TV to Air Russian Spacewalk Featuring the Olympic Torch” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XOoVgzSFL8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/international_space_station.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 2 

8, 2021

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2021

161730(28)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 161730

v COA: 351600

Kent CC: 94-000501-FC

MARIO ESTUARDO CARINES,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to hold the case in 

abeyance for six months to allow newly retained counsel to review and supplement the 

record is GRANTED. The case is held in abeyance until November 29, 2021.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-1999
<CASH>                                         101,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,946,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                   387,336
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,200,443
<PP&E>                                       4,473,365
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,090,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,140,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,251,943
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,352
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,226,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,140,637
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,453,195
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,793,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             217,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                441,994
<INCOME-TAX>                                   215,024
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            226,920
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   226,970
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"From Hidden Figures to Modern Figures Bookmark and Minibiography","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kdfO3fnEJb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/from-hidden-figures-to-modern-figures-bookmark-and-minibiography\/\">From Hidden Figures to Modern Figures Bookmark and Minibiography<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/from-hidden-figures-to-modern-figures-bookmark-and-minibiography\/embed\/#?secret=kdfO3fnEJb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“From Hidden Figures to Modern Figures Bookmark and Minibiography” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kdfO3fnEJb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/edu_hidden_figures_bookmark.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":464}
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00165-CR

Raymond Clinton Hammer

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

25th District Court of Lavaca County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-08-9586CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 29, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TAMARA COLON, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

 Case No. 1:20-cv-03317 

 Plaintiff,

Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

v.

Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman

DYNACAST, LLC,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 3, 2020, there was filed with the Clerk of the 

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Remand, copies of which are attached and hereby served upon you, and which will be brought 

before the Honorable Judge Dow, or any judge sitting in his stead, in the courtroom usually 

occupied by him in the U.S. District Courthouse, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the 

14th day of July, 2020, at 9:15 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. 

Dated: July 3, 2020 

Alejandro Caffarelli 

Madeline K. Engel 

Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. 

224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Tel. (312) 763-6880 

acaffarelli@caffarelli.com 

mengel@caffarelli.com

Respectfully submitted, 

TAMARA COLON, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

By: /s/ Madeline K. Engel 

 Attorney for the Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-03317 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:485
No. 13,518.

#### Scott *v.*Davis et al.

Fbaudulent Conveyance.— *When Grantee Will Hold.*— A purchaser of land who pays a consideration for it will hold it as against the grantor’s creditors, unless it is affirmatively shown that he participated in the grantor’s fraud or had knowledge of his fraudulent intention.

*Same.*— Consideration.—Agreement *to Support Parents.*— A conveyance is not fraudulent because the purchaser, in addition to the consideration paid in money and notes to a third person, agrees to support his father and mother during their lifetime.

*Same.*— Secret *Trust.*— Such an agreement by the grantee does not constitute *233a secret trust invalidating the conveyance, if it is otherwise supported by an adequate consideration, and the grantee is not guilty of fraud.

Filed Feb. 1, 1889.

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

*J. F. Harney,*for appellant.

*L. J. Coppage,*for appellees.

Elliott, C. J. —

A purchaser who buys land and pays a consideration for it will hold the land against the creditors of the vendor, unless the creditors affirmatively show that the purchaser had notice of the intention of the vendor to defraud his creditors, or that he participated in his grantor’s fraud. It is not enough to show fraud on the part of the vendor, where the purchaser is not a mere volunteer, but pays a consideration for the land. To set aside the conveyance as fraudulent, much more must be shown. *Jarvis*v. *Banta,*83 Ind. 528; *First Nat’l Bank*v. *Carter,*89 Ind. 317; *Hogan*v. *Robinson,*94 Ind. 138; *Pennington*v. *Flock,*93 Ind. 378; *Seager*v. *Aughe,*97 Ind. 285; *Plunkett*v. *Plunkett,*114 Ind. 484.

There was in fact no evidence in this case, upon which the court was bound to act, showing a fraudulent intent on the part of the vendor, and certainly'none at all tending to show that the purchaser was a participant in the fraud, or that he had guilty knowledge.

A conveyance is not fraudulent because the purchaser, in addition to the consideration paid in money and notes to third person, agrees to support his father and mother during their lifetime; nor does such an agreement constitute a secret trust invalidating the conveyance, in cases where it is otherwise supported by an adequate consideration, and the grantee is not guilty of fraud.

Judgment affirmed.
#### JOHN ZAMELLI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FRANK TROST, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued May 15, 1945

Decided November 29, 1945.

For the appellant, *A. Leon Kohlreiler (Archibald Kreiger,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *Veter Ilofstra.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Colie in the Supreme Court.

Hbher, J.

(Dissenting.) Tt would seem to be elemental justice that one who maliciously gathers surface water on his land and discharges the accumulation upon his neighbor’s premises, not legitimately to serve his own interest in the use and enjoyment of his lands, to which the diversion is merely an incident, but solely to cause injury to his neighbor, is guilty of an unjustifiable invasion of his neighbor’s correlative right to the use and enjoyment of his lands, and is liable in damages if substantial harm ensues to his neighbor. Such I conceive to be a principle well grounded both in moral philosophy and in jurisprudence. *Vide Field*v. *West Orange,*36 *N. J. Eq.*118; *affirmed,,*37 *Id.*600; *Cassini*v. *Orange,*107 *Id.*128. The cases of *Bowlsby*v. *Speer,*31 *N. J. L.*351, and *Jessup*v. *Bamford Bros. Co.,*66 *Id.*641, are plainly not in conflict with this principle.

Here, the trial judge found that defendant, by “the several acts which caused the unnatural overflow into” plaintiff’s lands, sought “to wreak vengeance” upon plaintiff, and “acted spitefully and maliciously.” There was evidence tending to *466sustain this finding o£ malice, and. its worth was a question exclusively within the province of the trier of the facts. The finding is accordingly conclusive on error. *B. 8. 2:32-202.*

Since I entertain the view that defendant suffered no harm from the other rulings complained of, I vote to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court and to affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Mr. Justice Case, Mr. Justice Perskie and Judge Rafferty join in this opinion.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Wells, ¡Dill, Preund, JJ. 7.

*For reversal*— Case, Heher, Perskie,. Rafferty, JJ. 4.
V

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 999

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for a hopper barge.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1997

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

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for a hopper

barge.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and section 12106 of title

5 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation

6 may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate

7 endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
2

•HR 999 IH

1 vessel known as hopper barge E–15 (North Carolina State

2 official number 264959).

Æ
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF W&T OFFSHORE, INC.



The subsidiaries of W&T Offshore, Inc. are listed below.



|                                          |  |                      
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Name                                      |  | State of Organization
|Offshore Energy I LLC                     |  | Delaware             
|                                          | 
|Offshore Energy II LLC                    |  | Delaware             
|                                          | 
|Offshore Energy III LLC                   |  | Delaware             
|                                          | 
|Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Properties LLC |  | Delaware             
|                                          | 
|W&T Holdings, L.L.C.*                     |  | Louisiana            

---

|* | W&T Offshore, Inc. has commenced the process of dissolving this subsidiary.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Laughran, Treasurer, on the Relation of Spiller, *v.*Campbell and Others, in Error.

DEBT on a constable’s bond against the principal and his sureties. The declaration assigns the following breaches:

*487I. That on the 30th of *August,-*1826, *Spiller*caused a *fieri facias*to be issued by *R.*Meek, a justice of the peace, and suecessor in office of *J.*Goodhue, late a justice of the peace, which execution was issued by *Meek*(who had by succession and delivery *Goodhue’s*docket, and sufficient authority for the purpose) on a judgment rendered by *Goodhue*on the 27th of *November,*1822, in favour of *Spiller*against *French*for, &c.; that the execution was directed to Campbell, as constable, and placed in his hands to be served; that *Campbell*did not execute the writ, though *French*had sufficient goods, &c., but refused to levy, &c.; whereby, &c. 2. That *Campbell,*by virtue of such another execution so issued, levied on a horse of French’s, &c., but refused to sell him, and permitted *French*to take him away, &c. 3. That *Campbell, by*virtue of such another execution so issued, levied on a horse, &c., and falsely returned that the horse was rescued, *See.,*and that there was no other property, &c. 4. That *Campbell*having received such another execution so issued, neglected and refused to make any return of the same, &c. 5; That *Campbell,*by virtue' of such another execution so issued on a judgment, *See.,*which had been transferred from the docket of justice *Goodhue*to that of justice *Meek,*levied on a horse, *See.,*and falsely returned that the horse was rescued, *&c.*

The defendants demurred to the whole declaration, except the 5th breach. Cause's of demurrer: — 1. It is not shown that the judgment had been revived by *scire-facias.*2.’It is not shown that *Goodhue’s*judgment had been legally transferred to *Meek’s*docket. 3. It is not averred that the relator had recovered a judgment against the constable. Plea to the 5th breach, that the judgment .was not duly transferred, *See.*concluding to the country.

The plaintiff demurred to the plea, because it. concluded to the country.

The'defendants’ demurrer was sustained, and that of the plaintiff overruled. Judgment below for the defendants.'

*The Court*considered, that the demurrer of the defendants should have been overruled, and that of the plaintiff sustained. Judgment reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

*J. H. Scott*and *P. Sweetser,*for the plaintiff.

*J. H. Thompson*and *H. P. Thornton,*for the defendants.
#### Lemon and Others *v.*Hay, Treasurer, &c.

In a suit by notice and motion, under the statute, against the collector of county taxes and his sureties, the description of the bond in the notice must be as particular as it should be in a declaration.

ERROR to the *Clark*Circuit Court.

Holman, J.

Judgment on motion in favour *of Hay,*treasurer of *Clark*county, against *Lemon,*late sheriff and collector of that county, and *Carr, Hucklebury,*and *Cooper,*his sureties, for failing to pay certain taxes due to the said county, *by*the said *Lemon,*as collector. The notice names *Carr, Hucklebury,*and *Cooper*as the sureties of *Lemon,*without stating in what manner they became sureties.

The act of assembly requires "that the collectors of taxes *228should give bond with surety; and if *Carr, Hucklebury,*and *Cooper*were the sureties of *Lemon,*as collector, it was by bond executed agreeably to the provisions of the act of assembly. If such was the case, the bond which showed their liability to this motion, should have been set forth in the notice as fully as it should be in a declaration. See *Dawson*v. *Shaver et at.,*decided at this term (1). The notice is therefore insufficient, and thft proceedings thereon are erroneous.

*Howk,*for the plaintiffs.

*Ross,*for the defendant,

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

(1)

 Ante, p. *204.*Stat. 1817, p. 291; — 1823, p. 122.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26713]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM


Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
Extension of Clearance

AGENCY: Selective Service System.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The following forms have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):

SSS FORMS 2, 3A, 3B and 3C

    Title: Selective Service System Change of Information, Correction/
Change Form, and Registration Status Forms.
    Purpose: To insure the accuracy and completeness of the Selective 
Service System registration data.
    Respondents: Registrants are required to report changes or 
corrections in data submitted on the SSS Form 1.
    Frequency: When changes in a registrant's name or address occur.
    Burden: A burden of two minutes or less on the individual 
respondent.
    Copies of the above identified forms can be obtained upon written 
request to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 
1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of 
clearance of the form should be sent within 60 days of the publication 
of this notice to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance 
Officer, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service 
System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Lawrence Romo,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-26713 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8015-01-P