alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0.20   | 0.20   | 0.21  
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 0.21   | 0.22   | 0.23   | 0.25   | 0.30   | 0.40   | 0.51   | 0.77   | 0.90   | 1.32  
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 1.85   | 2.39   | 2.97   | 3.15   | 3.04   | 2.92   | 2.52   | 2.17   | 2.10   | 2.01  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1.95   | 1.87   | 2.07   | 1.97   | 1.70   | 1.49   | 2.27   | 2.29   | 2.01   | 1.88  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2.97   | 3.55   | NA     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 3/29/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 4/30/2024
Exhibit
23.1











CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-146425 on Form S-8, and in Registration Statement No. 333-138182 on Form S-1
of our report dated March 18, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Flagstone Reinsurance Holdings
Limited and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Flagstone Reinsurance Holdings Limited and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 2007.














/s/
Deloitte & Touche


Hamilton,
Bermuda


March 18,
2008
No. 12-167.

#### United States v. Davila.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Miller Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2018
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc Napolitano, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: May 9, 2018                                                                          |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|                                                                                            |  |  | 
|/s/  Marc Napolitano                                                                        |  |  | 
|Marc Napolitano
        Principal Executive Officer and
        Principal Financial Officer |  |  | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Miller Industries, Inc.
and will be returned by Miller Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### FAITH DELIVERANCE TEMPLE, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 17, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Janet C. Thorpe, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
No. 12-6243.

#### Cutaia *v.*Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis [ante,*p. 975] denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1314

To designate the United States Courthouse located in Bridgeport, Connecticut

as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 29 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To designate the United States Courthouse located in

Bridgeport, Connecticut as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal

Building’’.

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

3 That the United States Courthouse located at 915 Lafay4 ette Boulevard in Bridgeport, Connecticut shall be des5 ignated as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Building’’. Any

6 reference in a law, regulation, map, document, record, or

7 other paper of the United States to that building shall

8 be deemed to be a reference to the Brien McMahon Fed9 eral Building.

Æ
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Nicholas J. Galassi, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of InnerWorkings, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ACt
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|By: |  | /s/ Nicholas J. GalassiNicholas J. GalassiChief Financial Officer | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Date:
March 17, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### IN the INTEREST OF: K.C.H., a Minor

3796 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/29/2017

CP-51-AP-0001066

CP-51-DP-0002641-2015

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF EXPERT**

 

We have reviewed Black Tusk Mineral Inc.'s (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2007 (the “10-KSB”) and agree with the statements disclosed by the Company related to the following report contained in the 10-KSB and documents incorporated by reference therein:

Summary Geology Report – Golden Bear Claims, dated August 24, 2006.

We hereby consent to the use of our report by the Company and the information contained therein.  

 

/s/ George E. Nicholson, P.Geo.  

August 29, 2007

 

----
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 20 11

- NM

- 001

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### COM. v. KINDLER, J.

3339 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

8/21/2017

CP-51-CR-0827471-1982

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### IN the INTEREST OF: N.D.H.B., a Minor

756 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/21/2017

CP-51-AP-0000046-2017

CP-51-DP-0002358-2015

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### Timothy S. MORIARTY, Petitioner, v. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-2736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 25, 2017

Petition for Issuance of Injunction— Original Jurisdiction.

DENIED.
#### Deer Shore Associates, Respondent, v Deer Park Steak House, Inc., Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 368]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff Deer Shore Associates has a current and enforceable option to purchase certain property owned by the defendant Deer Park Steak House, Inc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated September 23, 2002, which, upon finding that the defendant’s attorney had apparent authority to settle the matter, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that Deer Park Steak House, Inc., must sell the subject property to the plaintiff for the sum of $126,666.66.

*572On January 29, 1999, the attorneys for the parties entered into an agreement settling this matter. The agreement states that the real property at issue shall be sold by the defendant, Deer Park Steak House, Inc. (hereinafter the owner), to the plaintiff Deer Shore Associates, at a price established by the appraisal procedure set forth in the agreement. Contrary to the owner’s contention, the settlement agreement is not ambiguous *(see*W.W.W. *Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157 [1990]).

The court correctly found that the owner’s attorney had apparent authority to settle the matter *(see Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224 [1984]; *Siegel v Ocean Park Hous. Co.,*248 AD2d 459 [1998]). The principal of the owner ratified the agreement by his conduct, on which the plaintiff reasonably relied *(see Slavin v Polyak,*99 AD2d 466 [1984]).

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in the plaintiffs favor *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], *appeal dismissed*371 US 74 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]). S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|South Carolina Natural Gas Percentage Total Industrial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|South Carolina Natural Gas Percentage Total Industrial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 1.20   | 1.19   | 1.15   | 1.08   | 1.21   | 1.23   | 1.27  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1.20   | 1.09   | 1.28   | 1.10   | 1.08   | 1.12   | 1.19   | 1.15   | 1.08   | 1.05  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1.08   | 1.10   | 1.12   | 1.13   | 1.09   | 1.13   | 1.14   | 1.16   | 1.15   | 1.16  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1.16   | 1.19   | 1.16   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|California Natural Gas % of Total Residential - Sales  (Percent)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|California Natural Gas % of Total Residential - Sales  (Percent)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 100.0 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 100.0  | 99.7   | 99.2   | 99.2   | 99.3   | 99.4   | 99.2   | 99.2   | 1.0    | 99.3  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 99.1   | 99.4   | 99.4   | 98.3   | 99.6   | 99.7   | 99.6   | 99.5   | 99.3   | 98.9  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 98.5   | 98.3   | 97.5   | 96.1   | 94.8   | 94.9   | 95.1   | 95.1   | 94.9   | 95.0  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 95.5   | 95.7   | 95.8   | 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
Exhibit 18.1

PREFERABILITY LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

August 7,
2008

Maui
Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 187
Kahului, Maui, Hawaii 96733-6687

Dear
Sirs/Madams:

At
your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, of
the facts relating to Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.'s (the "Company") change in accounting for processed pineapple juice inventories from the Last-In,
First-Out ("LIFO") method to the First-In, First-Out ("FIFO") method. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to
us by appropriate officials of the Company, that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the
circumstances.

We
have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc. and subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2007.
Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by
officials of the Company, or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc. and subsidiaries as of any date or for any period
subsequent to December 31, 2007.

Yours
truly,

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Honolulu,
Hawaii

---



QuickLinks
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

RHONDA FLEMING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 15-1135 (EGS) 

MEDICARE FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION GROUP, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER

On October 13, 2015, the Court referred this case for full 

case management to a randomly assigned magistrate judge. See

Min. Order (10/13/2015). Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey 

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on the parties’ 

cross-motions for summary judgment on April 4, 2019. See R&R, 

ECF No. 184. The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and, 

having received no objections to the R&R pursuant to Local Civil 

Rule 72.3(b), accepts the findings and adopts the 

recommendations of Magistrate Judge Harvey contained in the R&R. 

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that defendants’ renewed motion for summary 

judgment is DENIED; and it is further 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment 

is DENIED; and it is further 
2

ORDERED that defendants shall file by no later than July 

29, 2019 a renewed motion for summary judgment addressing the 

two deficiencies identified in the R&R, which are: Defendants’ 

failure to show: (1) that the Department of Justice lacks 

custody or control over Assistant United States Attorney Albert 

Balboni’s personnel records that are held at the National 

Personnel Records Center: and (2) that the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services properly invoked Exemption 6 over the 

information redacted from the records it recently produced to 

plaintiff. 

SO ORDERED. 

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan 

United States District Judge 

June 13, 2019
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, C.E. Andrews, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Private Credit Student LoanTrust 2006-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required under this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement andadministration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by JPMorgan ChaseBank, National Association, as indenture trustee for the period from January 1, 2006 throughSeptember 30, 2006 and The Bank of New York, on behalf of JPMorgan Chase Bank, NationalAssociation, as indenture trustee, for the period from October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.Date: March 23, 2007   /s/ C.E. Andrews   C.E. Andrews  Chief Financial Officer  SLM Funding LLC