alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                        
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Alaska Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Alaska Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1.54   | 1.34   | 1.25  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1.51   | 1.66   | 1.63   | 1.52   | 1.94   | 2.59   | 3.84   | 4.67   | 5.49   | 4.02  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4.23   | 3.84   | 5.11   | 8.16   | 7.97   | 6.86   | 5.06   | 4.63   | 5.81   | 5.85  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4.83   | 5.20   | 6.72   | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,945
<SECURITIES>                                       584
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (605)
<INVENTORY>                                     38,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,927
<PP&E>                                         257,185
<DEPRECIATION>                               (169,071)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,750
<BONDS>                                          7,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,892
<OTHER-SE>                                     144,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,591
<SALES>                                        122,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,775
<CGS>                                          102,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,302
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 595 

Designating the week beginning September 12, 2010, as ‘‘National 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2010 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BOND, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. BURRIS, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. 

CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, 

Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HAGAN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. KAUFMAN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. LEVIN, 

Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. 

VOINOVICH, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WEBB, and Mr. WICKER) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning September 12, 2010, as 

‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

Week’’. 

Whereas there are 105 historically Black colleges and universities in the United States; 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities provide 

the quality education essential to full participation in a 

complex, highly technological society; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 595 ATS 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have a 

rich heritage and have played a prominent role in the history of the United States; 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities allow talented and diverse students, many of whom represent underserved populations, to attain their full potential 

through higher education; and 

Whereas the achievements and goals of historically Black colleges and universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week beginning September 

3 12, 2010, as ‘‘National Historically Black Colleges 

4 and Universities Week’’; and 

5 (2) calls on the people of the United States and 

6 interested groups to observe the week with appro7 priate ceremonies, activities, and programs to dem8 onstrate support for historically Black colleges and 

9 universities in the United States. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 444 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 444

To authorize testimony and legal representation in City of Vancouver v. 
                               Galloway.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 2010

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony and legal representation in City of Vancouver v. 
                               Galloway.

Whereas, in the case of City of Vancouver v. Galloway, Cr. No. 171555V, pending 
        in Clark County District Court in Vancouver, Washington, the prosecution 
        has requested testimony from Allison Creagan-Frank and Bethany Works, 
        former employees of the office of Senator Patty Murray;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent present or former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 
        relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Allison Creagan-Frank, Bethany Works, and any other 
employee of Senator Murray's office from whom testimony may be 
required, are authorized to testify in the case of City of Vancouver v. 
Galloway, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Allison Creagan-Frank, Bethany Works, and any other employee of Senator 
Murray's office from whom testimony may be required, in connection with 
the testimony authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        49870
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       3648
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           10843
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         53698
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  118059
<COMMON>                                          7357
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           38
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              30735
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   38130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             39805
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                3000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     1315
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   35809
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   118059
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        43168
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              1319
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       38035
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       39354
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           3814
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 240
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    4054
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2649
<NET-INCOME>                                      1405
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     1405
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          2232
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         2314
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            5200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
        

        

</TABLE>
#### Bieker v. Kansas Dept. of Wildlife, Parks, & Tourism

110,984

08/20/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN TISBY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3366

[March 1, 2018]

Appeal of order denying 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth A. Scherer, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-427 CF10A.

John Tisby, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------





                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


             I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

             1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
             reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports
             filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this
             annual report, of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-75CB;

             2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken
             as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material
             fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
             statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
             statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the
             period covered by this annual report;

             3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing
             information required to be provided to the trustee by the master
             servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
             for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

             4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
             master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
             agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
             review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in
             the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations
             under that agreement; and

             5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to
             the master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing
             standards based upon the report provided by an independent public
             accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
             Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
             similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or
             similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

             In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
             information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
             The Bank of New York, as Trustee.


             Date: March 28, 2006


                                            /s/ Steve Bailey
                                            ----------------
                                            Steve Bailey
                                            Senior Managing Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JASON YODER

v.

MCCARTHY CONSTRUCTION, INC.;

CASTELLI MECHANICAL DESIGN AND CATANIA ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,

INC.

v.

AIR CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, INC.; AND

RRR CONTRACTORS, INC.

PETITION OF: JASON YODER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 127 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of May, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issues, as stated by petitioners, are:

I Whether this Court should overrule its decision in Fonner v. Shandon, Inc. , 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999), and hold that the General Assembly's 1974 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act, making it mandatory for all employers to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, necessitates denying “statutory employer” status to general contractors unless they in fact have been calle d on to pay workers’ compensation benefits to the injured employee of a

subcontractor?[ 127 EAL 2023 ]

- 2

II Whether this Court should overrule its decision in LeFlar v.

Gulf Creek Indus. Park #2 , 515 A.2d 875, 879 (Pa. 1986), holding that the statutory employer defense is unwaivable in the nature of subject

- matter jurisdiction, in a case such as this where the supposed statutory employer was not called on to pay any workers’ compensation benefits?

III Whether the Superior Court failed to properly apply the factors

that m ust be strictly established under McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930), for a general contractor to qualify as a statutory employer in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as verdict

- winner, necessitating at the very least a

retrial a t which the jury would resolve the disputed factual issues concerning whether McCarthy qualifies as Yoder's statutory employer under the McDonald test?

The Application of the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania to Join the Amici Brief

of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel and the Pennsylvania Defense

Institution in Opposition to Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED

.
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Rhode Island Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Rhode Island Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3.35   | 3.38   |       
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        | 2.69   | 4.70   | 6.72   | 7.04   | 9.68   | 7.58   | 8.06   | 10.50  | 4.98  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5.45   | 5.10   | 3.98   | 5.84   | W      | 3.72   | W      | 3.63   | 4.21   | 3.31  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.39   | 4.49   | W      | W      |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
# File Information

A13 - Avg VMT by Efficiency

Std Errors for A13

N Cells for A13

# A13 - Avg VMT by Efficiency

# Std Errors for A13

# N Cells for A13
#### State v. Thomas

111,621

12/14/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
#### Robert J. Kalinowski, Plaintiff, *v.*Interstate Motor Freight System et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Rensselaer County,

February 29, 1972.

*Katz & Gantman (Donohue, Bohl, Clayton & Komar*of counsel), for Carl G. Grimm, defendant. *Davison & Holbrook*for plaintiff. *Oliver, Scully & Delaney*for Interstate Motor Freight System, defendant.

A. Franklin Mahoney, J.

Defendant, Carl Gr. G-rimm, seeks an order pursuant to CPLB 3025 (subd. [b]) permitting him to serve an amended answer setting forth a cross complaint against the defendant, Interstate Motor Freight System. The plaintiff did not appear in opposition. Defendant, Interstate, opposes the motion alleging that the lease between the defendants that defendant G-rimm seeks to include in his answer by amendment had expired prior to the date of the happening of the accident alleged in the complaint and, therefore, has nothing to say respecting the rights of the defendants in this lawsuit. The defendant is correct in this position and the motion must be denied.

Section 232-c of the Beal Property Law provides that *“*where a tenant whose term is longer than one month holds over after the expiration of such term, such holding over shall not give to the landlord the option to hold the tenant for a new term solely by virtue of the tenant’s holding over ”. The purpose of section 232-c, effective September 1, 1959, was to change • the common-law rule that a holdover tenant may be held as a tenant for a new term. If, after a lease expires, the tenant remains in possession as a tenant from month to month pursuant to section 232-c of the Beal Property Law, he loses any options, privileges or rights he may have had during the term of the lease. The options, privileges, duties, rights and obligations of the parties under a lease are only valid during the original term and do not obtain in a hold over tenancy *(Gulf Oil Corp.*v. *Buram Realty Co.,*11 N Y 2d 223; *Friederang*v. *Ruth Aldo Co.,*199 App. Div. 127; *Manhattan Gear & Instrument Co.*v. *2350 Linden Blvd. Corp.,*27 A D 2d 570; *Matter of Lazarus*v. *Flournoy,*28 A D 2d 685).