Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Calvin Williams, Petitioner v. Samson Resources Corporation, et al.

Calvin Williams

Appendix Table of Contents

Opinion of the Third Circuit

(April 12, 2018) ................................................................................App.1

Memorandum Opinion of the District Court

(August 30, 2017).............................................................................App.6

Order of the Bankruptcy Court Authorizing Debtors to Sell

Certain Oil and Gas Assets Free and Clear of All Liens, Claims

and Encumbrances (February 24, 2016) ........................................ App. 15

Order of the District Court Granting Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (December 15, 2016) ............................................App.28

Order of the Third Circuit Denying Petition for Rehearing

(May 14, 2018) ..................................................................................App.29

Louisiana Mineral Code ..................................................................App.30

Judgment Recognizing the Heirs of William James Seamster ......App.31

1930 U.S. Census Record ................................................................App.32

Assignment, Bill of Sale and Quitclaim (July 2, 2003)..................App.35

Oil, Gas and Mineral Lease ............................................................App.38

Amendment to Oil and Gas Lease..................................................App.42

Sublease...........................................................................................App.46

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 17-3218

In re: SAMSON RESOURCES CORPORATIONS, et al.,

Debtors

Calvin Williams,

Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D. Del. Civ. No. 1:16-cv-01124)

District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 10, 2018

Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 12, 2018)

OPINION*

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by Calvin Williams, who in the underlying bankruptcy case

objected to the sale of certain mineral rights by the debtor, Samson Resources

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.

App.1

Corporation ("Samson").' Williams had inherited a royalty interest in minerals extracted

from the "Seamster Heirs" well in Webster Parish, Louisiana. And Samson—an

Oklahoma-based company involved in exploration and production of hydrocarbons—

sought to sell its working interest in the lease governing the Seamster Heirs well ("the

Seamster Lease") as part of its reorganization strategy in the Bankruptcy Court.

In litigating Williams's objection, the parties stuffed the record with evidence of

the transactions leading to their respective interests in the well. Apparently, it all started

with Will Seamster—Williams's great-grandfather—who was born in Louisiana in the

late nineteenth century. A farmer with no formal education, Seamster came to own

around 40 acres of land in Webster Parish. In 1949, he purportedly conveyed mineral

rights to Leroy Connell in exchange for $1,000 and a 1/8 royalty interest in any mineral

production on or pooled under his land. When Seamster died, his royalty interest was

divided amongst his children per stirpes. Succession of those interests was detailed in a

Seamster 'family tree' prepared by Samson, which calculated Williams's current, fourthgenerational royalty interest to be 1/240 of Seamster's original 1/8 interest. Pursuant to

that interest, Williams received and cashed royalty checks from Samson, which acquired

a working interest in the Seamster Lease through a merger in 2003—the latest in a

decades-long series of such transfers between various oil and gas companies.2

1

Technically, there are several related corporate debtors, each of which filed a petition

for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court consolidated

the cases. For ease of reference, we refer to the entities collectively as "Samson."

App.2

At the conclusion of a hearing on June 7, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court overruled

Williams's objections and authorized the sale to go forward. On June 29, 2016, Williams

moved for reconsideration, citing new evidence. On July 11, 2016, Williams filed an

identical-in-substance motion, titled "Motion to Present New Evidence." The Bankruptcy

Court denied reconsideration on September 7, 2016. Williams filed a post-judgment

motion for relief, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Bank. P. 9023, which, after

revision by Williams, was denied on November 16, 2016. Williams then sought review

from the District Court, filing a notice of appeal on December 5, 2016.

2

After briefing in this appeal was complete, the Bankruptcy Court disallowed each proof

of claim filed by Williams and his relatives. The Bankruptcy Court concluded, inter alia,

that Samson "properly and fully paid" Williams and his relatives all royalties that they

were due. Williams appealed, and that matter is currently pending in the District Court.

See DC Civ. No. 1:18-cv-00084 (D. Del.).

The Bankruptcy Court's September 7, 2016 order denying reconsideration made

reference only to Williams's July 11, 2016 motion. In this appeal, the parties were

directed to file supplemental briefs "identifying where in the record the Bankruptcy Court

disposed of the request for reconsideration filed June 29, 2016.

In Williams's

supplemental brief, he explains that the two motions at issue were really one and the

same; the June 29, 2016 motion was "resubmitted" in the form of the July ii, 2016

motion because he perceived that the Bankruptcy Court "never addressed" it in its

original form. Samson argues that the July 11, 2016 motion simply amended—thus

rendering moot and in no need of separate adjudication—the June 29, 2016 motion.

Alternatively, Samson argues that, because the motions were identical in substance, the

Bankruptcy Court's order denying the second-filed motion necessarily constituted a

denial of the first-filed one. We agree with Samson's alternative argument. See United

States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280, 291 (3d Cir. 2014); see also Addington v. Farmer's

Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981) ("The denial of a

motion by the district court, although not formally expressed, may be implied by the

entry of. an order inconsistent with the granting of the relief sought by the motion.").

In doing so, we note that Williams's unauthorized reply to Samson's supplemental brief

was—as with Williams's other filings—liberally construed and carefully considered.

. .."

.

.

App.3

The District Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It

concluded that Williams's appeal was untimely. The District Court determined that, at

most, Williams's post-judgment motions tolled the appeal deadline until November 30,

2016: 14 days after the Bankruptcy Court denied Williams's Rule 59(e) motion, and 5

days before he filed his notice of appeal. Cf. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(1)(B).4 The

District Court also determined that it was powerless to excuse Williams's belated appeal.

The District Court relied on our precedential holding in Caterbone, that the 14-day appeal

window in bankruptcy cases, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1), has a statutory basis, see

28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2), and thus, under Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007), is

mandatory and jurisdictional. See In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 110-12 (3d Cir. 2011).

Williams timely appealed the District Court's decision to this Court.5 He also moved in

the District Court for reconsideration, which motion was denied by order entered October

26,2017. 6

Having reviewed all of the arguments set forth in Williams's briefs and

supplemental filings, and perceiving no error below, we will affirm the judgment of the

The District Court questioned whether the Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed and thus

capable of tolling at all, but declined to resolve the issue in light of its conclusion that

Williams's appeal was untimely even with the benefit of tolling under Bankruptcy Rule

8002(b)( 1)(B).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 158(d)(1) & 1291. We review de novo

whether the District Court properly dismissed Williams's bankruptcy appeal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. See Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 111.

6

Williams did not appeal the District Court's October 26, 2017 order.

0 07 ON

District Court for substantially the reasons set forth in its August 30, 2017 memorandum

opinion.7 In short, because Williams did not timely appeal to the District Court, he lost

the opportunity for appellate review of the merits of his objection to the Bankruptcy

Court's order authorizing the sale of Samson's interest in the lease governing the

Seamster Heirs well. Williams did not move in the Bankruptcy Court to extend the time

to appeal, under Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(d)(1), nor did he file anything after the

Bankruptcy Court denied relief under Rule 59(e) that could be liberally construed as a

timely motion under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(d)(1). And while we, like the District Court,

acknowledge the many difficulties inherent in proceeding pro se in a court hundreds of

miles away from one's home, some of which Williams discusses in his opening brief,

there are no equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements such as the one governing

the time to appeal final orders of bankruptcy courts. See In re Sobczak-Slomczewski, 826

F.3d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); see also Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214. Therefore,

we will affirm. Williams's pending motions are denied.

Samson's motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix is granted.

App.5

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #: 1151

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN RE:

: Chapter 11

SAMSON RESOURCES CORPORATION, etal.,

: Case No. 15-11934-CSS

Reorganized Debtors.

: (Jointly Administered)

CALVIN WILLIAMS,

Civ. No. 16-1 124-RGA

Appellant,

V.

SAMSON RESOURCES CORPORATION, et al.,

Appellees.

MEMORANDUM

Pending before this Court is apro se appeal from a June 8, 2016 Order (B.D.I. 1024)'

entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy

Court"), which overruled Appellant's objection to the Debtors' motion to approve the sale of

certain assets as part of their Chapter 11 reorganization. For the reasons set forth below, the

appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

I.

Background. On September 16, 2015, Samson Resources Corporation, together

with certain affiliates ("Debtors"), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the

Bankruptcy Code. On February 13, 2017,- the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the

Debtors' plan of reorganization. (B.D.I. 2019).

The docket of the chapter 11 cases, captioned In re Samson Resources Corp., et al., Case No.

15-1 1934-CSS (Bankr. D. Del.), is cited herein as "B.D.I. ."

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 9 PagelD #: 1152

As part of their reorganization, on January 29, 2016, Debtors filed a motion

seeking authority to sell certain assets (B.D.I. 621) ("Sale Motion"), including the Debtors'

working interests in certain oil and gas leases.

Appellant is apro se individual who filed a proof of claim in the Debtors' Chapter

11 cases (Claim No. 732). Appellant believes that Debtors do not hold a valid lease on certain

land that is owned by him along with certain of his relatives who are descendants and heirs of

William Seamster (collectively, "Seamster Heirs"). On February 12, 2016, Appellant filed an

objection to the Sale Motion on behalf of himself and ten family members, alleging that the

claims of the Seamster Heirs precluded the Debtors from being able to sell certain interests

subject to and free and clear of liens. (B.D.I. 665). On March 15, 2016, Appellant filed a second

objection to the asset sale, and Debtors filed a supplement in further support of the Sale Motion

on March 23, 2016. (B.D.I. 770, 795). On April 26, 2016, Appellant filed a letter in further

support of his position. (B.D.I. 893).

On June 7, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing on

Appellant's objection to the Sale Motion, at which time the parties presented evidence and

argument in support of their positions. (D.L 22, 6/7/16 Hr'g Tr. at 7:1-60:3). Debtors presented

evidence and testimony setting forth, inter alia, the difference between the Debtors' working

interest in the assets and Appellant's royalty interest in the assets;' the continued validity of the

lease and the Debtors' ownership of a working interest thereunder; and the fact that the proposed

sale did not include Appellant's royalty interest. (See id. 15:22-41:3). Appellant made various

2

Debtors' witness testified generally that a typical oil and gas lease creates and governs separate

interests in the wells. (See D.I. 22, 6/7/16 Hr'g Tr. at 17:14-18:10). Generally speaking, the

owner of the "working interest" has the right to come onto the property to drill and operate the

well. The owner of the "royalty interest" is the mineral owner who receives a portion of the

revenue generated by oil and gas produced by the well. (See id.)

2

App.7

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 3 of 9 PagelD #: 1153

arguments, focusing on his belief that royalty payments were not properly made (see id. at 44:2445:3) and that the lease was invalid because it had expired by its own terms (41:18-44:19; 50:1951:12). Following argument, the Bankruptcy Court ruled from the bench. (See id. at 60:4-67:4).

As the Bankruptcy Court explained, "[W]hat's in front of me today is whether or-not the Debtors

can sell their alleged working interest in the Seamster tract to a third-party. What's not in front

of me today is anything to do with the royalty payments.

.

.

The royalty issue and who owns the

working interests are two separate things." (Id. at 60:7-60:20). The Bankruptcy Court

determined, based on the facts and evidence presented, that "there is a valid lease" and that "the

Debtor has the ability to sell that working interest." (Id. at 65:9-65:12). The next day, the

Bankruptcy Court entered the Order overruling Appellant's objection and approving Debtors'

Sale Motion with respect to the assets. (B.D.I. 1024).

5.

On July 11, 2016, Appellant filed a Motion to Present New Evidence (B.D.I.

1154) ("First Reconsideration Motion"). The Bankruptcy Court treated this as a motion for

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, held a hearing on September 7, 2016,

and denied the First Reconsideration Motion the same day. (B.D.I. 1325). On September 15,

2016, Appellant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

to Prevent Manifest Injustice (B.D.I. 1355), and subsequently filed a revised version of same on

October 5, 2016 (B.D.I. 1446) ("Second Reconsideration Motion"). The Bankruptcy Court held

The Bankruptcy Court also set forth alternative bases for overruling Appellant's objection to

the sale. "In the alternative, the Court could find. the fact that the beneficiaries of the

Seamster lease received and continue to receive royalty payments prior to 1959 and have

continued to receive them to this day, that under Louisiana law, that constitutes sufficient

evidence that there's a valid lease." (Id. at 65:13-65:19). "That is not my primary ruling. My

primary ruling is factual in nature. My secondary ruling, only to the extent my primary ruling is

wrong, would reach the same result. Those checks have been received, they've been cashed; as a

legal matter that's sufficient to establish the lease." (Id. at 65:20-65:25). The Bankruptcy Court

also observed that the relevant statute of limitations provided a third basis for overruling

Appellant's objection to the sale. (See id. at 66:1-66:20).

.

.

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 4 of 9 PagelD #: 1154

another hearing to consider the Second Reconsideration Motion on November 16, 2016, and

again denied Appellant's request for relief by order entered the same day. (D.I. 22, 11/16/16

Hr'g Tr. at 42:25-60:5; B.D.I. 1663).

On December 5, 2016, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal with the Bankruptcy

Court. (D.I. 1). On February 9, 2017, the Court held a telephonic status conference, at which

time the parties agreed to a briefing schedule to address lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

equitable mootness, as well as the merits of the appeal. (See D.I. 18, 2/9/17 Hr'g Tr.). The

parties each made timely submissions, and this matter is fully briefed. (D.I. 21, 22, 31, 32, 46).

Debtors' opening brief raises several arguments in support of dismissal of the

appeal and affirmation of the Order. Debtors argue that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction because it was filed nearly three months after the 14-day appeal

deadline set by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Rule") 8002(a)(1). (See

D.I. 21 at pp. 6-8). Debtors further argue that even if the Court had jurisdiction to consider this

appeal, the rights to operate wells underlying the asset sale have already been sold, and the

doctrine of equitable mootness also requires dismissal of the appeal. (See id. at pp. 2, 8-11).

According to Debtors, Appellant has suffered no injury or prejudice by virtue of the sale of the

Debtors' working interest in the wells, which is distinct from the royalty interest owned by

Appellant, which royalty interest Appellant continues to own. (See id. at p. 2). Finally, Debtors

4Appellant has filed numerous letters, supplements, and requests in addition to the briefing

ordered by the Court, including: a letter request for the appointment of a forensic accountant

(D.I. 16); a motion to present the appeal orally, in lieu of briefing (D.I. 19; denied at D.I. 20); a

motion for default judgment (D.I. 29); a motion to reject Debtors' opening brief as untimely (D.I.

34); a motion for summary judgment (DJ. 36); a motion to compel payment from the Debtors

(D.I. 51); and many other notices pertaining to arguments and evidence that Appellant would like

the Court to consider in connection with the appeal (see D.I. 14, 15, 35, 38, 39, 47, 49, 50, 52,

53, 56, 57, 58). To the extent not already denied, these requests are dismissed as moot in

connection with the dismissal of the appeal.

4

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 5 of 9 PagelD #: 1155

argue that the Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that Appellant's tort and contract claims are

meritless and barred by state law. (See id. at pp. 11-12). Appellant's brief asserts essentially the

same arguments presented to the Bankruptcy Court below: that the lease was unconscionable

from the outset and the product of fraud; that royalty payments were not properly made under the

lease; that the lease has expired under its own terms; and that the Debtors have been unjustly

enriched by virtue of the sale. (See D.I. 25, 32). Appellant's brief does not address Debtors'

arguments that the appeal was untimely and is now equitably moot. (See id.)

8.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review. The Court has appellate jurisdiction over

all final orders and judgments from the Bankruptcy Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).

Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1) provides: "Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a notice

of appeal must be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment,

order, or decree being appealed." Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). Subdivision (b)(l)5 provides, "If

a party timely files in the bankruptcy court any of the following motions, the time to file an

appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining

motion," and then lists the following motions: (A) to amend or make additional findings; (B) to

alter or amend the judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9023; (C) for a new trial under Bankruptcy

Rule 9023; or (D) for relief from judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9024. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8002(b)(1). Thus, a party may toll the 14-day deadline by timely filing a motion to alter or

amend the judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(1)(B). The Third Circuit has held that the failure to

appeal a bankruptcy court's ruling to the district court within the time period established by

Subdivision (c) is irrelevant here, as it refers to rules for claimants who are incarcerated. See

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(c).

5

App. 10

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 6 of 9 PagelD #: 1156

Bankruptcy Rule 8002 deprives the district court of jurisdiction to hear an appeal. See In re

Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2011).

Discussion. Although the Bankruptcy Rules alone cannot create or withdraw

jurisdiction, Congress has limited the jurisdiction of this Court to hear an appeal from a final

order of a Bankruptcy Court by specifically incorporating the time limits of Rule 8002 in the

jurisdictional grant to the district courts to hear appeals from bankruptcy courts. Section

158(c)(2) of title 28 provides that "an appeal under subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be

taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of

appeals from the district courts and in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy

Rules." 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (emphasis added).

The Third Circuit has held on several occasions that the time limits of Bankruptcy

Rule 8002 are jurisdictional and deprive an appellate court of subject matter jurisdiction if the

appellant fails to comply. See Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 112-13 (citing S'holders v. Sound Radio,

Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1997); Whitemere Dev. Corp., Inc. v. Cherry Hill Twp., 786 F.2d

185, 187 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Universal Minerals Inc. 755 F.2d 309, 311 (3d Cir. 1985)). In

Caterbone, the court stated that:

[bjecause Section 158 . specifies the time within which an appeal must be taken

i.e., "in the time provided by Rule 8002" that requirement is jurisdictional...

Here, even though it is a bankruptcy rule that specifies the time within which an

appeal must be filed, the statutory incorporation of that rule renders its

requirement statutory and, hence, jurisdictional and non-waivable.

.

-

.

-

Id. at 111-12.

This appeal must be dismissed because it was not timely filed. Here, the order

Appellant is appealing from was entered on June 8, 2016. As noted above, a party may toll the

14-day deadline by timely filing a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Bankruptcy Rule

9023. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b)(1)(B). In such cases, the time to file an appeal runs "from

App. 11

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #: 1157

entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion." See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b).

Setting aside that Bankruptcy Rule 9023 actually imposes a 14-day deadline to file a motion to

alter or amend (as opposed to the 28-day deadline contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59), Appellant filed the First Reconsideration Motion on July 11, 2016,6 and the Bankruptcy

Court denied it on September 7, 2016. The 14-day deadline therefore began on September 7,

2016, in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8002(b). As Debtors correctly argue, the fact that the

Second Reconsideration Motion was filed within 14 days of the order denying the First

ReconsiderationMotiondoes not control. (See D.I. 21 at p. 7). "[A] second or successive

motion under Rule 59(e), which again seeks 'relief from the underlying judgment of dismissal,'

must still be filed within the [statutory] window 'that open[s] following the entry of judgment."

Lopez-Rosario v. Programa Seasonal Head Start, 140 F. Supp. 3d 214,218 (D.P.R. 2015)

(quoting Fisher v. Kadant, Inc., 589 F.3d 505, 511 (1st Cir. 2009)); see also Montalvo Rios v.

Municipality of Guaynabo, 2011 WL 2518631, at *2 (D.P.R. June 24, 2011) (finding district

courts lack authority to consider second motion for reconsideration brought outside time limit

after the entry of judgment, and also quoting Fisher: "[t]he fact that it was filed within [the

statutory window following] the denial of the first motion for reconsideration makes no

difference"). Because the Second Reconsideration Motion was filed more than 14 days after the

June 8, 2016 Order, the Second Reconsideration Motion was untimely, and it did not extend the

deadline under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 to file a notice of appeal. See In re Memorex Telex Corp.,

241 B.R. 841, 844 (D. Del. 1999) ("an untimely filed motion for reargument or motion to alter or

amend judgment will not toll the time for an appeal.")

6 Debtors describe this motion as a "timely filed motion for reconsideration." (D.I. 21 at 5).

Twenty-eight days from June 8, 2016, would be July 6, 2016; fourteen days would be June 22,

2016. The motion's certificate of service stated that it was served by mail on June 30, 2016.

(B.D.I. 1154-2). In light of my other conclusions, I do not have to decide when exactly the

motion needed to be served and/or filed.

7

App. 12

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 8 of 9 PagelD #: 1158

As Debtors correctly argue, even assuming that the 14-day deadline began to run

upon entry of the November 16, 2016 order denying the Second Reconsideration Motion, the

deadline to file the notice of appeal would have expired on November 30, 2016. See Fed. R.

Banks. P. 8002(a)(1). Here, the notice of appeal was not filed until December 5, 2016, after the

deadline imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 8002.

Appellant does not address the untimeliness of the appeal, nor does he set forth

any basis for excusable neglect. That said, Appellant's briefing is replete with references to

poverty and inability to afford legal counsel .7 (See e.g., D.I. 32 at pp. 2-3). "[Appellant]

proceeds pro Se, and accordingly, we construe his pleadings liberally." Laughlin v. Peck. 552

Fed. App'x 188,190 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Names v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519,520-21 (1972)).

Under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(d), the Bankruptcy Court "may extend the time to file a notice of

appeal upon a party's motion that is filed: (A) within the time prescribed by this rule; or (B)

within 21 days after that time, if the party shows excusable neglect." Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8002(d)(1). Bankruptcy Rule 8002(d) requires that, even in cases of excusable neglect, the issue

must be raised and a motion filed within 21 days following the expiration of the 14-day appeal

period. Although Appellant could have asked the Bankruptcy Court to extend the time to appeal

upon a showing of excusable neglect by filing a motion within 21 days after the time for taking

an appeal had expired, Appellant did not do so. Here, no motion for relief or showing of

excusable neglect was ever made to the Bankruptcy Court, and "[t]he rule does not allow a party

to claim excusable neglect after the [time period] ha[s] expired." Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 113-14.

The Court is therefore without jurisdiction to consider the appeal regardless of whether

The Court granted Appellant's application for leave to proceed without paying fees or costs in

connection with the appeal. (See D. 1. 1, 4).

App. 13

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 60 Filed 08/30/17 Page 9 of 9 PagelD #: 1159

Appellant might demonstrate excusable neglect. See, e.g., Siemon v. Emigrant Savings Bank,

421 F.3d 167,169 (2d Cir. 2005).

Conclusion. While the Court understands the challenges of pursuing relief on a

pro se basis, the jurisdictional defect is non-waivable. Having failed to file a timely notice of

appeal and having failed to make a showing of excusable neglect for the untimely filing within

the time frame set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(d)(1)(B), this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear

the appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed.8

A separate order will be entered.

Entered this

30 day of August, 2017.

AAfLq2

United States

States Iistrict Judge

8

As the Court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the Court has no occasion to address

the equitable mootness and other arguments raised in Debtors' briefs. (See D.I. 21, 46).

9

App. 14

o16

,e 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 6 of 78 PagelD #: 90

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re:

Chapter 11

SAMSON RESOURCES CORPORATION, et al.,'

Case No. 15-11934 (CSS)

Debtors.

(Jointly Administered)

Re: Docket No. 621

ORDER AUTHORIZING DEBTORS TO SELL CERTAIN OIL AND GAS ASSETS

FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LIENS, CLAIMS, AND ENCUMBRANCES

Upon the motion (the "Motion")2 of the above-captioned debtors and debtors in

possession (collectively, the "Debtors"), for entry of an order (this "Order") authorizing the

Debtors to sell the Wells in the Oil and Gas Auctions or in private sales under section 363 of

title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), all as set forth in the Motion, free

and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances; and the Court having found that the Court has

jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; and the Court having found

that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and the Court having found that

venue of this proceeding and the motion in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408

and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the motion is in the best

interests of the Debtors' estates, their creditors, and other parties in interest; and the Court having

found that the Debtors provided good and sufficient notice of the motion and the opportunity for

a hearing on the motion under the circumstances, including to the the agents under the Debtor's

2

The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor's federal tax identification

number, include: Geodyne Resources, Inc. (2703); Samson Contour Energy Co. (7267); Samson Contour

Energy E&P, LLC (2502); Samson Holdings, Inc. (8587); Samson-International, Ltd. (4039); Samson

Investment Company (1091); Samson Lone Star, LLC (9455); Samson Resources Company (8007); and

Samson Resources Corporation (1227). The location of parent Debtor Samson Resources Corporation's

corporate headquarters and the Debtàrs' service address is: Two West Second Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion.

App.15

L-7

ç

J

1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 7 of 78 PagelD #: 91

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 36

first lien credit facility (the "RBL Agent") and second lien credit facility (the "Second Lien

Agent") and counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors in the Debtors' chapter 11

cases (the "Committee"); and the Court having reviewed the motion and the objections thereto

and having heard the statements in support of the relief requested therein at a hearing before the

Court (the "Hearing"); and the Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth

in the motion and at the Hearing establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of

the proceedings had before the Court; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing

therefor, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The Motion is granted as set forth herein, and all objections to the relief granted

herein that have not been withdrawn, waived, or settled hereby are overruled on the merits,

except for the objections filed by certain heirs of Randolph Parker and William Seamster

[Docket Nos. 637, 645, 646, 661, 662, 664, 665] (the "Continued Objections"). The Motion is

continued to a date to be determined with respect to such Continued Objections, and the relief

granted herein shall not apply to any oil and gas wells in which such Parker and Seamster heirs

own interests.

Pursuant to sections 105, 363, and 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors are

authorized to offer the Wells listed on the attached Exhibit A for sale in any Oil and Gas

Auction and to enter into and perform under any agreements or other documentation necessary to

consummate any sale of a Well, regardless of whether such sale results from an Oil and Gas

Auction, including assuming and assigning any applicable agreements related to the Wells;

provided that, for the avoidance of doubt, the term "Well" as used in this Order shall refer only

to the interests of the Debtors' estates in a given Well; provided, further, that (a) the Debtors

shall provide notice to the Committee, the RBL Agent, and the Second Lien Agent of (i) the

2

App. 16

3 0~ 13

011)

1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 8 of 78 PagelD #: 92

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 4 of 36

proposed minimum bids for the Wells to be offered for sale in the Oil and Gas Auction

scheduled for March 9, 2016, no later than February 29, 2016 and shall consult with the

Committee, the RBL Agent, and the Second Lien Agent regarding such proposed minimum bids,

and (ii) their intention to offer any Wells for sale in any Oil and Gas Auction other than the

auction scheduled for March 9, 2016 or to sell any Well in a private sale, in each case at least

fourteen (14) days before such Oil and Gas Auction or private sale and shall consult with the

Committee, the RBL Agent, and the Second Lien Agent regarding any minimum bids or

proposed purchase price(s) and (b) the Committee, the RBL Agent, and the Second Lien Agent

shall have the right to object to any such proposed minimum bids or Oil and Gas Auction or

private sale for any reason, including the insufficiency of the proposed purchase price or

minimum bid, by notifying the Debtors of such objection within three (3) business days after

receiving such notice, without the need to file a formal objection with the Court, and if, after

good faith negotiations, the Debtors and the Committee, the RBL Agent, or the Second Lien

Agent (as applicable) are unable to resolve such objection consensually, the matter shall be

resolved by the Court prior to the applicable Oil and Gas Auction or private sale at a hearing to

be scheduled as soon as reasonably practicable and in accordance with the Court's calendar.

3.

The Debtors are authorized to pay any fees and commissions due and owing in

connection with the Oil and Gas Auction. OGAC will be deemed retained by the Debtors

pursuant to section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code and will submit an application to this Court for

approval of reimbursement of promotional and other costs incurred by OGAC by the Debtors

under the governing agreement between the Debtors and OGAC.

3

App. 17

q

0-c-

(_

e7 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 9 of 78 PagelD #: 93

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 5 of 36

The proceeds from the safe in any Oil and Gas Auction or private sale of any Well

that the Debtors have identified as not being subject to a mortgage shall be placed in a segregated

bank account established by the Debtors.

Nothing in the Motion or this Order is intended to or shall prejudice the rights of

any party in interest with respect to (a) whether all or a portion of any Well or all or a portion of

the proceeds of any Well is subject to a valid lien, claim, encumbrance, or interest, (b) whether

the costs associated with any Oil and Gas Auction or private sale may be surcharged against or

otherwise paid out of any sale proceeds or other collateral, and (c) any future proposed sales of

the Debtors' assets other than the Wells.

For any Wells that are sold in the same lot in an Oil and Gas Auction or otherwise

sold together in a private sale, the purchaser shall allocate the purchase price on a Well-by-Well

basis, which allocation shall be binding on all parties in interest in these chapter 11 cases.

Any sale of a Well conducted pursuant to an Oil and Gas Auction or a private sale

on the terms set forth in this Order shall, for all purposes, be deemed to have been negotiated and

consummated at arm's length without collusion or fraud and in good faith within the meaning of

section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code. In connection with any such sale of a Well, the

purchaser thereof shall, for all purposes, be deemed to have: (a) recognized that the Debtors

were free to deal with any other party interested in acquiring the Wells; (b) complied with the

requirements imposed by the Debtors with regard to any purchase of the Wells; (c) satisfied fully

all requirements for purposes of ensuring the sale of the Wells was fully proper and sufficient,

and (d) not violated section 363(n) of the Bankruptcy Code by any action or inaction. As a result

of the foregoing, the purchaser of any of the Wells at an Oil and Gas Auction or through a

private sale shall, for all purposes, be deemed a "good faith purchaser" within the meaning of

ru

1

0

-C:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 10 of 78 Page ID #: 94

(i iq)

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 6 of 36

section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, and as such, shall be entitled to all of the protections

afforded thereby, including that the sale shall not be invalidated in the event this Order or any

portion thereof is reversed or modified on appeal, and such purchaser otherwise shall, for all

purposes, be deemed to have proceeded in good faith in all respects in connection with the sale

specifically and these chapter 11 cases generally. No "insider" of the Debtors (as such term is

defined in section 101(31) of the Bankruptcy Code) shall be permitted to purchase any Well,

whether pursuant to an Oil and Gas Auction or any other sale.

8.

Except as expressly provided in the terms set forth in any applicable sale

agreement or by this Order, pursuant to sections 105, 363, and 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, upon

the consummation of the sale of any Well, whether pursuant to an Oil and Gas Auction or a

private sale, neither the purchaser nor its respective successors and assigns shall have any

liability for any competing lien, claim, encumbrance, or interest, except for any specifically

identified liens and any expressly identified assumed liabilities set forth in any proposed

purchase and sale agreement between the Debtors and any purchaser, and such sale shall be free

and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances, and interests, whether known or unknown as of the

date of such consummation, now existing or hereafter arising, whether fixed or contingent,

prepetition or post-petition, whether as a successor, vicariously, or otherwise, of any kind,

nature, or character whatsoever, including for any claims arising under, without limitation:

(a) any labor or employment agreements; (b) all mortgages, deeds of trust, and security interests;

any intercompany loans and receivables between the Debtors and any non-Debtor affiliate;

any pension, welfare, compensation, or other employee benefit plans, agreements, practices,

and programs, including, without limitation, any pension plan of any Debtor, any affiliate of any

Debtor, or any member of the Debtors' "control group;" (e) any other employee, worker's

5

App. 19

((

1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 11 of 78 PagelD #: 95

I

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 7 of 36

compensation, occupational disease, or unemployment or temporary disability related claim,

including, without limitation, claims that might otherwise arise under or pursuant to (i) the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, (ii) the Fair Labor Standards

Act, (iii) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (iv) the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

(v) the National Labor Relations Act, (vi) the Age Discrimination and Employee Act of 1967 and

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, (vii) the Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990, (viii) the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, (ix) state

discrimination laws, (x) state unemployment compensation laws or any other similar state laws,

the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.0 §§ 2101 et. M., or

any other state or federal benefits or claims relating to any employment with the Debtors or

any of their predecessors; (f) claims arising under any environmental, health and safety laws with

respect to any assets owned or operated by Debtors or any corporate predecessor at any time

prior to the Closing Date and any liabilities of the Debtors; (g) any bulk sales or similar law;

(h) any tax statutes or ordinances, including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code of

1986, as amended; (i) any and all claims arising out of violations, or other non-compliance with

any law(s), regulation(s), standard(s), guideline(s), enforcement order(s), or any other authority

or requirement enforced by, or under the supervision of the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration; (j) any theories of successor liability or causes of action related thereto; (k) any

unpaid royalties or similar interests arising before the consummation of the sale; and (I) any

liens, claims, or encumbrances imposed or chargeable under any financing, cash collateral, or

other order of the Court, which otherwise touches or concerns the Wells that are sold a

purchaser; provided that (x) the foregoing shall not apply to (i) any and all plugging and

abandonment and other decommissioning obligations of the Debtors in respect of any Well,

6

App.20

1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 12 of 78 PagelD #: 96

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 8 of 36

(ii) any third party working interests, royalty interests, production payments, or similar recorded

interests in any applicable Well (or, if unrecorded, interests subject to section 541(b)(4) of the

Bankruptcy Code), or (iii) any obligations of the Debtors under any applicable oil and gas lease,

joint operating agreement, or similar conveyance or agreement that relates to operations of the

Well or otherwise touches and concerns the Well; (y) the Debtors shall pay in full all pre-closing

royalty payments and other disbursements related to the Wells prior to the consummation of the

sale of any Well; and (z) the Debtors shall assume and assign (to the extent necessary under the

Bankruptcy Code) any applicable oil and gas lease, joint operating agreement, or similar

conveyance or agreement which relates to operations of the applicable Well or otherwise touches

and concerns the applicable Well to the purchaser of such Well.

9.

Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Order or in the applicable

purchase agreement providing for the sale of one or more Wells, the holder of any valid lien,

claim, encumbrance, or interest on such Well(s) shall, as of the effective date of such sale, be

deemed to have waived and released such lien, claim, encumbrance, or interest, without regard to

whether such holder has executed or filed any applicable release, and such lien, claim,

encumbrance, or interest shall automatically, and with no further action by any party, attach to

the proceeds of such sale. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such holder of such a lien, claim,

encumbrance, or interest is authorized and directed to execute and deliver any waivers, releases,

or other related documentation, as reasonably requested by the Debtors; provided that, this

paragraph 9 shall not apply to (a) any and all plugging and abandonment and other

decommissioning obligations of the Debtors in respect of any Well, (b) any third party working

interests, royalty interests, production payments, or similar recorded interests in any applicable

Well (or, if unrecorded, interests subject to section 541(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code), or (c) any

7

App.21

"

J

L

Ga&e,.:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 13 of 78 PagelD #: 97

C7(c?)

10

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 9 of 36

obligations of the Debtors under any applicable oil and gas lease, joint operating agreement, or

similar conveyance or agreement that relates to operations of the Well or otherwise touches and

concerns the Well.

Except as provided in this Order, all persons are hereby enjoined from taking any

action that would interfere with or adversely affect the ability of the Debtors to transfer the Wells

in accordance with the terms of any applicable purchase and sale agreement and this Order.

Following the consummation of the sale of any Well, no holder of any claim or interest

(including as such term is used in section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code) against the Debtors

shall interfere with the purchaser's title to or use and enjoyment of such Wells, subject to the

terms of any applicable purchase agreement for such Wells.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Order and/or any provision of any

asset purchase agreement or other agreement entered into by the Debtors pursuant to this Order

to the contrary, and solely to the extent any EnerVest Well is actually sold pursuant to the

authority granted by this Order, the provisions of this paragraph shall govern with respect to the

EnerVest Wells, and to protect EnerVest's interest in such wells.3 The Debtors shall assume and

assign to the purchaser(s), and by this Order the purchaser(s) shall be deemed to have assumed

all rights, responsibilities, liabilities, and obligations under, all agreements governing the

EnerVest Wells including, but not limited to, the New Mexico Operating Agreement, the

Oklahoma Well Order, and the Texas Operating Agreement, and other applicable law, as of any

sale closing date for any EnerVest Wells. The purchaser(s) shall take Debtors' interests in the

EnerVest Wells subject to any contractual and/or statutory liens in favor of EnerVest including,

The terms defined in this paragraph shall have the meaning ascribed to them in Ener Vest's Limited Objection to

Debtors' Motion for Entry of an Order Authorizing Debtors to Sell Certain Oil and Gas Assets Free and Clear

of all Liens, Claims and Encumbrances [Docket No. 62 1] ("EnerVest's Limited Objection").

8

App.22

LiI 0 Oa 21:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 14 of 78 PagelD # 98

q)

IO

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 10 of 36

but not limited to the New Mexico Operator Liens, the Oklahoma Well Liens, the Texas NonOperator's Liens, and the Texas Oil and Gas Asset Liens. Any sale shall be subject to

EnerVest's interests in the EnerVest Wells as described in EnerVest's Limited Objection, and

EnerVest's interests shall not be altered, amended, or otherwise affected by this Order. This

Order shall not release the Debtors from, or otherwise waive, any obligations, liabilities, and/or

responsibilities that the Debtors have with respect to the EnerVest Wells as of any sale closing

date including monetary obligations, such as payment of production revenues to working interest

owners and payment of joint interest billings, and all other liabilities associated with the

EnerVest Wells including, but not limited to, any and all plugging and abandonment and other

decommissioning obligations. Such obligations, liabilities, and/or responsibilities shall be

satisfied in the ordinary course of the Debtors' and EnerVest's business. With respect to certain

of the EnerVest Texas Wells (as identified in EnerVest's Limited Objection), the Debtors

acknowledge that they are the operator for such wells and will remain obligated and responsible

for all monetary obligations of the operator, such as the production payments, owed to EnerVest

as working interest owner through any sale closing date. With respect to the EnerVest operated

EnerVest Wells, the Debtors acknowledge and agree that EnerVest may continue to exercise its

rights as an operator under the operating agreements and other applicable law through any sale

closing date with respect to the Debtors' rights including, but not limited to, any right to recovery

of joint interest billing by recoupment or otherwise. The Debtors have provided EnerVest with a

form agreement for the transfer of their interest in the EnerVest Wells. The Debtors agree to use

this form (or another agreement on substantially similar terms and conditions); to the extent that

any proposed sale agreement relating to the EnerVest Wells is not on substantially similar terms

9

App.23

031:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 15 of 78 PagelD #: 99

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 11 of 36

and conditions, the Debtors agree to provide EnerVest with an opportunity to review and

comment on any such sale agreement.

Notwithstanding any provision in the Motion, this Order, or the Federal Sale

Documents (as defined below), any assignment and/or transfer of any interests in contracts,

leases, covenants, operating rights agreements, rights-of-use and easements, and rights—of-way

or other interests or agreements: (a) with the federal government; (b) involving (i) federal land

or minerals or (ii) lands or minerals held in trust for federally-recognized Indian tribes or Indian

individuals (collectively, "Indian landowners"); or (c) held by such Indian landowners in fee

with federal restriction on alienation (collectively, the "Federal Leases") will be ineffective

absent the consent of the United States and any applicable Indian landowner. The Debtors and

their prospective buyer(s) agree to comply with all applicable bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy

law with respect to the Federal Leases, and nothing in any implementing auction or sale

documents relating to the Federal Leases (the "Federal Sale Documents") shall otherwise affect

any decommissioning obligations and financial assurance requirements under the Federal Leases

as determined by the United States and any applicable Indian landowner (as provided for under

applicable law and the Federal Leases) that must be met by the Debtors or the prospective

buyer(s).

Nothing in the Federal Sale Documents shall be interpreted to require the United

States and any applicable Indian landowner to novate, approve, or otherwise consent to the

assignment and/or transfer of any interests in the Federal Leases. For the avoidance of doubt, in

order to obtain the consent of the United States and any applicable Indian landowner, all existing

defaults under the Federal Leases, including any outstanding rents or royalties known to date

plus interest, must be assumed and cured. The United States Department of Interior

10

App.24

("Qi") will

/

of 7t9

0

7i)

1:16cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 16 of 78 PagelD #: 100

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 12 of 36

retain and have the right to audit and/or perform any compliance review, and if appropriate,

collect from the Debtors and/or prospective buyer(s) any additional monies owed by the Debtors

prior to the transfer or assignment of the Federal Leases without those rights being adversely

affected by these bankruptcy proceedings.

The Debtors and any successful buyer that is able to obtain consent and an interest

in the Federal Leases will retain all defenses and/or rights, other than defenses and/or rights

arising from the filing of these chapter 11 cases, to challenge any determinations relating to the

Federal Leases; provided that any such challenge, including any challenge associated with this

bankruptcy proceeding, must be raised in the United States' administrative review process

leading to a final agency determination by the DOT. The audit and/or compliance review period

shall remain open for the full statute of limitations period established by the Federal Oil and Gas

Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 (30 U.S.C. § 1701, et seq.) to the extent

applicable to the Federal Leases under non-bankruptcy law. Nothing in the Federal Sale

Documents or this Order shall affect the United States' police and regulatory powers, and the

United States' rights to offset or recoup any amounts due under, or relating to, any Federal

Leases (if any) are expressly preserved.

Nothing in this Order or any applicable purchase agreement releases, nullifies,

precludes, or enjoins any liability to any governmental unit under any applicable Environmental

Law4 on the part of any entity as the owner or operator of property after the date of entry of this

As used in this Order, "Environmental Law" means all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances

and similar provisions having the force or effect of law, all judicial and administrative orders, agreements and

determinations and all common law concerning pollution or protection of the environment, or environmental

impacts on human health and safety, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Oil Pollution Act; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; the

11

App.25

g

,.Ca7 l6-cv-01124-RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 17 of 78 PagelD #: 101

I/O.i

(7/7)

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 13 of 36

Order. To the extent provided by section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, no governmental unit

may deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew any permit, license, or similar grant relating to the

operation of any Well on account of the filing or pendency of these chapter 11 cases. Nothing in

this Order or the applicable purchase agreement authorizes the transfer or assignment of any

governmental (a) license, (b) permit, (c) registration, (d) authorization or (e) approval, or the

discontinuation of any obligation thereunder, without compliance with all applicable legal

requirements and approvals under Environmental Law.

As adequate protection under section 363(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the liens on

any Well held by any applicable tax authority for ad valorem taxes shall attach to the proceeds of

the sale of such Well to the same extent and with the same priority as such liens were attached to

the applicable Well; provided that the Debtors shall not be required to segregate any such

proceeds for the benefit of any tax authority and shall be permitted to utilize such proceeds to the

extent otherwise permitted pursuant to this Order.

To the extent any Well sold pursuant to this Order is encumbered by any liens of

the Debtors' first lien, secured lenders or second lien secured lenders, such liens shall attach to

the proceeds of the sale of such Well to the same extent and with the same priority as such liens

were attached to the applicable Well.

Notice of the Motion as provided therein shall be deemed good and sufficient and

the requirements of the Local Rules are satisfied by such notice.

Notwithstanding the possible applicability of Bankruptcy Rules 6004(h), 7062,

9014 or otherwise, the terms and conditions of this Order are immediately effective and

enforceable upon its entry.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947; and any state or local

equivalents.

12

App.26

,

C7

?,:16cv01124RGA Document 2-4 Filed 12/06/16 Page 18 of 78 PagelD #: 102

(7/i)

O

Case 15-11934-CSS Doc 719-1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 14 of 36

The Debtors are authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief

granted in this Order in accordance with the motion.

This Court retains jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to

the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.

Wilmington, Delaware

Dated: __________,2016

THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. SONTCHI

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

13

App.27

Case 1:16-cv-01124-RGA Document 4 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #: 486

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

SAMSON RESOURCES

CORPORATION, et al.,

Debtor,

CALVIN WILLIAMS,

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case No. 15-11934

BAP No. 16-72

)

Appellant,

Civ. No. 16-1124-RGA

V.

SAMSON RESOURCES

CORPORATION,

Appellee.

ORDER

The appellant, Calvin Williams a

se litigant has filed an appeal from an

order entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court and has requested leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Therefore, at Wilmington this

day of December, 2016,

the Court having considered the long form application to proceed without prepayment of

fees, submitted on December 6, 2016 (D.l. # 1), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915;

IT IS ORDERED that the application is GRANTED.

•1

1T'

DATED:

United States District Judge

Case: 17-3218 Document: 003112929636 Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/14/2018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 17-3218

In re: SAMSON RESOURCES CORPORATIONS, et al.,

Debtors

Calvin Williams,

Appellant

(D.C. No. 1-16-cv-01 124)

Present: SMITH, ChiefJudge, McKEE, AMBRO, CHAGARES,

JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENA WAY, Jr., VANASKIE,

SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS and FISHER', Circuit Judges.

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant, Calvin. Williams in the aboveentitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this

Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service,

and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of

the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for

rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is denied.

BY THE COURT:

s/ D. Michael Fisher

Circuit Judge

Dated: May 14, 2018

PDB/cc: Calvin Williams

All Counsel of Record

1

Judge Fisher's vote is limited to panel rehearing only.

App.29

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Off ice.