alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sidney Shapiro et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Prudential Theaters, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Charles Harrow et al., Third-Party Defendants.

District Court of Nassau County, Third District,

April 18, 1972.

*Jules Schwabmger*for plaintiffs. *William Gold*for defendant. *Kreisél & Passin*for Charles Harrow, third-party defendant.

I. Stanley Rosenthal, J.

Defendant has appealed from an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendant now seeks a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [c]).

The court does not feel that it should exercise its discretion in granting this stay and thus unduly delay the trial of this action. (See *Matter of Rivette,*283 App. Div. 851.) In view of the fact that the moving papers do not reveal any reasons why this application should be granted, it is the feeling of this court that the application should properly be made to the Appellate, Term, where appropriate conditions such as setting a date when the appeal should be perfected and brought on for argument can be imposed.

Defendant’s motion for a stay pending determination of the appeal herein is accordingly denied without prejudice to an application for similar relief to the Appellate Term.
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|District of Columbia Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|District of Columbia Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 43     | 10,492
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 18,249 | 16,378 | 26,430 | 22,772 | 17,425 | 13,873 | 13,933 |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 14,103 | 14,636 | 16,264 | 17,071 | 17,935 | 17,097 | 16,324 | 15,762 | 14,828 | 15,012
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 16,889 | 17,348 | 18,021 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Melissa B. LOEFFELHOLZ, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ST. VINCENT HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION and Sedgwick, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

CASE NO. 1D16-2139

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 4, 2017

An appeal from an order of Judge of Compensation Claims. Ralph J. Hum-phries, Judge.

Date of Accident: September 14, 2012.

AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1034 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and 

expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2011 

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

on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airport and Airway 

5 Trust Fund Financing Reauthorization Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1034 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND 

2 EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘April 1, 2011’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘October 1, 2014’’, and 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘or the FAA Reauthorization 

8 and Reform Act of 2011’’ before the semicolon at 

9 the end of subparagraph (A). 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of 

11 section 9502(e) of such Code is amended by striking 

12 ‘‘April 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2014’’. 

13 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF TAXES FUNDING AIRPORT AND AIR14 WAY TRUST FUND. 

15 (a) FUEL TAXES.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

16 4081(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

17 amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2011’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘September 30, 2014’’. 

19 (b) TICKET TAXES.— 

20 (1) PERSONS.—Clause (ii) of section 

21 4261(j)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 

22 ‘‘March 31, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

23 2014’’. 

24 (2) PROPERTY.—Clause (ii) of section 

25 4271(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1034 IH

1 ‘‘March 31, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

2 2014’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Eric Robert TURINSKI, Petitioner

No. 459 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 30, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
No. 12-6274.

#### Fogle *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|California Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|California Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8.1   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 13.4   | 22.2   | 25.5   | 23.1   | 51.3   | 47.9   | 45.3   | 49.6   | 51.3   | 42.9  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 42.9   | 37.4   | 31.4   | 29.7   | 28.8   | 31.3   | 35.3   | 39.3   | 43.3   | 45.1  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 45.9   | 45.7   | 50.0   | 50.1   | 51.6   | 50.1   | 48.9   | 47.6   | 48.7   | 47.1  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 49.6   | 46.7   | 45.8   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Attached files include redacted version of withheld confidential information.  
Withheld document contains privileged and confidential trade secrets and commercial or
financial information which is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
#### Joshua MCCLENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3732

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 13, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Willard Pope, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE EX REL. George WADE v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-1505

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

01/09/2018

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:

11 Denied. To the extent relator seeks post-conviction relief, the application was not timely filed hi the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

*547Relator has now fully litigated at least four- applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28- U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 980.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Colorado Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Colorado Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 1,183,978 | 1,223,433 | 1,265,032
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,315,616 | 1,365,410 | 1,412,920 | 1,453,971 | 1,496,873 | 1,524,810 | 1,558,908 |           |           |          
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,634,582 | 1,645,711 | 1,659,803 | 1,672,307 | 1,690,576 | 1,712,150 | 1,735,969 | 1,759,426 | 1,784,750 | 1,813,003
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,840,037 | 1,867,049 | 1,891,533 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = 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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10213 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, also known as Pee-Wee, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-252-X

- - - - - - - - - - November 6, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Government filed a motion to dismiss Nathaniel Williams’ appeal based of his execution of a plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. The motion is
DENIED. Williams argues that his guilty plea is invalid because the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. R. 11 byNo. 96-10213 - 2 - failing to advise Williams of the nature of the charge against him or of the consequences of his plea. We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the rearraignment hearing, the plea agreement, and the factual resume supporting the guilty plea, and hold that Williams was aware of the nature of the charge against him and of the consequences of his plea. Further, even if the district court varied from Rule 11 by not expressly stating the elements of the offense of conviction, such variance cannot be reasonably viewed as a material factor affecting Williams’ decision to plead guilty.
See United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). The district court also complied with Rule 11 by insuring that Williams was aware of the maximum term of imprisonment that he could receive for the offense of conviction. See United
States v. Jones , 905 F.2d 867, 868 (5th Cir. 1990). Williams has not demonstrated that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered because he was not aware of the nature of the charge against him or of the consequences of his plea.
AFFIRMED.
No. 12-254.

#### Sawyer *v.*Wright et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 110    | 361    | 110    | 230    | 287    | 93     | 0      | 528    | 258   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 291    | 340    | 1,338  | 1,389  | 554    | 405    | 636    | 868    | 776    | 720   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 29     | 1,358  | 239    | 210    | 330    | 46     | 415    | 89     | 0      | 528   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 142    | 146    | 211    | 13     | 64     | 260    | 227    | 597    | 409    | 861   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 551    | 5      | 967    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Maryland Natural Gas Exports (Price) All Countries  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Maryland Natural Gas Exports (Price) All Countries  (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 7.61   | 7.12  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6.59   | 8.06   | 11.03  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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