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:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Panama (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Panama (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,070  | 1,390  | 777    | 3,530  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**882 CA 15** 

**- 01076** 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF TROY WASHINGTON,
PETITIONER

- APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT

- RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY

- ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF CO UNSEL),
FOR PETITIONER

- APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL),
FOR RESPONDENT

- RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered May 13, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoking his release to parole supervision. Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner has not abandoned on appeal his contention that the ALJ relied on erroneous information in determining the time assessment to be imposed ( see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 984), we conclude that petitioner failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as he did no t bring the alleged error to the ALJ = s attention at a time A when the error could [have been] corrected @ ( Matter of Kirk
v Hammock , 119 AD2d 85 1, 854 ; see Matter of Bowes v Dennison , 20 AD3d 845, 846). In any event, there is no indication that the ALJ relied on the allegedly inaccurate information in determining the time assessment to be imposed ( see Matter of Boccadisi v Stanford , 133 AD3d 1169 , 1170

- 1171; cf. Matter of Henry v Dennison , 40 AD3d 1175, 1175).

Contrary to the further contention of petitioner, the 36

- month time assessment imposed against him is not excessive. It is well settled that

A [t]he Executive Law does not place an outer limit on the length of that

ass essment, and [respondent = s] determination may not be modified upon judicial review in the absence of impropriety @ ( Matter of Horace v Annucci , 133 AD3d 1263, 1265 [internal quotati on marks omitted]; see Executive
Law ' 259

- i [3] [f] [x]; [g]; Matter of Wilson v Evans , 104 AD3d 1190,**- 2** 

**- 882**  **CA 15**

**- 01076** 

1191). Petitioner was a category 1 violator ( see 9 NYCRR 8005.20 [c] [1] [v]), and thus A the minimum time assessment [was required to] be either 15 months or a hold to the > maximum expiration of the sentence, whichever [was] less = @ ( Horace , 133 AD3d at 1265, quoting 9 NYCRR 8005.20 [c] [1]).

Under the circumstances of this case, including the nature of the underlying charge as well as the nature of the violations, including the

A ongoing @ nature of petitioner = s drug use, we conclude that there was no impropriety, and thus no reason to modify the 36

- month time assessment.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
* Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1082
EDWARD R. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH OESTREICHER; WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON; TERRY L. MUSIKA; C. W. AMOS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95- 3117-CCB) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, * Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward R. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Jeffrey Magid, Stephen Francis Fruin, John Francis Carlton, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Lawrence David Coppel, John Martin Klein, II, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint and his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Butler v. Oestreicher , No. CA-95-3117-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 7, 1995; Jan. 4, 1996). Further, we deny Appellant's motion to remandthis case to the state court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                      
|No chart available.                                                      
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Florida Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
*No.*12A568 (12-42).

#### Germalic *v.*New York State Board of Elections Commissioners,

*ante,*p. 884. Application for leave to file petition for rehearing in excess of word limits, addressed to Justice Alito and referred to the Court, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          84,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,307,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,000
<INVENTORY>                                    157,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,682,000
<PP&E>                                      11,255,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,620,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,599,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,825,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,358,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,599,000
<SALES>                                      2,194,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,194,000
<CGS>                                        1,612,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  493,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6649

JAMES BEN SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM SMITH, Sheriff of Lenoir County and

the Manicipality of Lenoir County; JOHN AND

JANE DOES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-172-5-BO)

Submitted: September 20, 2004 Decided: December 13, 2004

Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ben Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Ben Smith appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Smith, No.

CA-04-172-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2004). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Arkansas Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Arkansas Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |         |         |           |           |           |         |         | 84,049  | 265,729 | 510,554
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 769,679 | 935,237 | 1,021,484 | 1,029,095 | 1,015,615 | 923,287 | 732,023 | 603,351 | 505,306 | 451,281
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 408,706 | 378,410 | 348,114   |           |           |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 4/30/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 5/31/2024
Exhibit 11.1



CODE OF ETHICS



Introduction



This Code of Ethics (the Code) sets forth the standards of conduct which The Rank Group Plc (Rank or the Company which expression shall include all the subsidiaries of Rank)
requires of the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer (Group Finance Director) and the Director of Financial Control and Tax (collectively the Officers).



Any questions involving the application of the Code should be referred to Ranks Company Secretary. Any allegation that any of the
Officers has contravened any of its provisions should be similarly referred.



Strict compliance with the code is expected and any violation may result in disciplinary action.



It is the responsibility of each Rank subsidiary company to develop a similar code for its directors, officers and employees including, but not limited to, those persons holding positions equivalent to that of the
Officers in each subsidiary company.



The Code



|1. | Honest and Ethical Conduct
|-- | --------------------------



Rank requires honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
relationships.



|2. | Disclosures
|-- | -----------



Rank promotes full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents, including financial statements, that Rank files with
the Registrar of Companies and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in other public communications made by the Company.



Each of the Officers shall seek to ensure that:



| | · | No unrecorded fund or asset of Rank is established or maintained for any reason;
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | No false, artificial or misleading entries in Ranks books and records shall be made for any reason; and
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | All reporting of information should be complete, accurate, honest and timely and should be a fair representation of the facts.
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

|3. | Compliance
|-- | ----------



The Officers are required to support and promote Ranks long-standing commitment to operate in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and
regulations in each jurisdiction in which it carries on business.



|4. | Violations
|-- | ----------



Each of the Officers or any employee should promptly report any violations of this code of which that Officer or employee becomes aware to Ranks
Company Secretary.



|5. | Accountability
|-- | --------------



Ranks Company Secretary is accountable for ensuring adherence to this code and in this regard reports to Ranks Audit Committee which is
comprised solely of independent non-executive directors. A report will be given by the Company Secretary to the Audit Committee concerning adherence to this code at least annually.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Brownsville, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Brownsville, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico (Million 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                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 69,321
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 267,529 | 325,943 | 328,969 | 365,663 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Germany (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Germany (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep   | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | ---
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 3,002 |     |     |    
|- = 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