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:                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                  
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                  
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 38.93  | 11.16  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 12-8024.

#### Peck *v.*Thomas, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Owen Midgley, Petitioner, v Joel M. Goldberg, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 624]

— Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to fully expunge all records pertaining to the petitioner’s DNA sample pursuant to Executive Law § 995-c (9) (b) (ii). Motion by the *736petitioner to stay all proceedings in an action entitled *People v Midgley,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 1256/02 pending the hearing and determination of this proceeding and motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion to dismiss the proceeding is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion for a stay is denied as academic.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28501-28502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13837]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-549-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Application to Abandon

May 19, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 14, 1998, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed under Section 
7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, for authority to abandon, a certificated 
interruptible transportation service for Sugar Bowl Gas Corporation 
(SBGC). The service is Koch's Rate Schedule X-37 in its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 2. Koch states that the SBGC sold its 
assets in 1983 and no longer needs the service. Koch's proposal is more 
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission 
and open to public inspection.
    Any person desiring to be heard or make any protest with reference 
to said application should on or before June 9, 1998, file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance 
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the regulations under the 
Natural

[[Page 28502]]

Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be 
considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but 
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a 
party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in 
accordance with the Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time 
required, or if the Commission on its own review of the matter finds 
that permission and approval of the proposed abandonment are required 
by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave to 
intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion 
believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such 
hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for Koch to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13837 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to Mexico  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to Mexico  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        | --     | 13.45  | --     | --     | --     | 5.00   | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Order filed, April 6, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00088

- CV

____________ MARCUS HILES , Appellant

V.
ARNIE & COMPANY, P.C

. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 2010

- 42061



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due February 6, 2012 , 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P.
35.1. On March 6, 2012 , this court gr anted Carmen Miller's motion for extension to file the record on or before April 4, 2012. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Carmen Miller , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order ; N O FURTHER EXTENSION WILL B E
ENTERTAINED

. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Carmen Miller does not timelyfile the record as ordered, we w ill issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to

determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

To the Trustees

MESABI TRUST

New York, New York

 

We have reviewed the condensed balance sheetof MESABI TRUST as of April 30, 2005, and the related condensed statementsof income and cash flows for the three-month periods ended April 30, 2005and 2004, respectively.  These interimfinancial statements are the responsibility of the Trust’s Trustees.

 

We conducted our review in accordance withstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates).  A review of interim financialinformation consists principally of applying analytical procedures and makinginquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an auditconducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinionregarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of anymaterial modifications that should be made to the accompanying interimfinancial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board, the balance sheet of MESABI TRUST as of January 31,2005, and the related statements of income and cash flows for the year thenended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 9, 2005, weexpressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth inthe accompanying condensed balance sheet as of January 31, 2005, is fairlystated, in all material respects, in relation to the balance sheet from whichit has been derived.

 

 
| GORDON, HUGHES & BANKS, LLP |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |
| Greenwood Village, Colorado          |
| May 23, 2005                    |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES EDWARD BLACKMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief

District Judge. (0:03-cr-01004-MBS-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, 

Kentucky, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Blackmon seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his self-styled 28 U.S.C. § 1651 

(2006) motion, which Blackmon concedes the district court 

correctly treated as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 

motion. Blackmon also seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.*

 The orders are 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

 * Although Blackmon styled his motion a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(1) motion, because the motion was filed within twentyeight days of the district court’s dismissal order and sought 

reconsideration of that order, we treat the motion as a Rule 

59(e) motion. 
3

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

After confining our review to the issues raised in 

Blackmon’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we conclude 

that Blackmon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

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.

DISMISSED
|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                         
|                                                                                                      
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to El Salvador (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                      
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to El Salvador (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 5.85   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nigel McCall, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 566]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J), rendered June 5, 2002, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and false personation, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Perone, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly ruled that the defendant’s statements, made during a series of voluntary meetings with representatives of the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, could be used for impeachment purposes if the defendant chose to testify at his trial. The record sufficiently supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the defendant was properly warned, prior to his testimony before the grand jury on June 11, 2001, that those statements could be used, inter alia, for impeachment purposes if he chose to testify at his trial *(see People v Hamilton,*138 AD2d 625 [1988]; *cf. People v Rich,*166 AD2d 615, 616 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 12-572.

No. 12-593.

No. 12-6555.

No. 12-6726.

No. 12-7017.

No. 12-7018.

No. 12-7223.

No. 12-7372.

#### In re Del Rio; In re Law Offices of Jennifer S. Gormley, P. C., et al.; In re Calloway; In re Entler; In re Chapman; In re Currie; In re Hill; and In re Vaksman.

Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.
No. 12-675.

#### Carpenter *v.*Gage et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8520
JOSEPH J. PAVLICO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-87-60, CA-95-308-P) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Pavlico, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pavlico v. United States , Nos. CR-87-60; CA-95-308-P (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1995). 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
No. 12-8064.

#### Moffit *v.*MacLaren, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT
        4.18
 
 **Supplementary
        Agreement on Imported Material for Processing**
 
 Party
        A:
        Shenzhen Long Gong City Ping Hu Golden Bright Factory
 Party
        B:
        Golden Bright Plastic Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
 Business
        Unit: Shenzhen Long Gong City Foreign Economic Services Company
 
 The
        original agreement is expired on 20 February, 1999. Due to successful mutual
        cooperation and the expansion on production capacity, Party A and Party B
        agree
        to extend the agreement by ten years, i.e. the new expiry date is 20 February,
        2009. Below are the supplementary clauses:
 
 1.
            Fixed
                Processing Fee is adjusted to USD1.67 per square meter
                monthly. 2.
            Local
                Labour Working Fee is adjusted to HKD650 per head monthly. 
 The
        adjustment will be made according to inflation rate in every two
        years.
 All
        other
        clauses remain unchanged.
 
 Party
        A:
        Shenzhen Long Gong City Ping Hu Golden Bright Factory
 Legal
        Representative (signature) :
 Address
        :
 Telephone
        :
 
 Party
        B:
        Golden Bright Plastic Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
 Legal
        Representative (signature) :
 Address
        :
 Telephone
        :
 
 Business
        Unit: Shenzhen Long Gong City Foreign Economic Services Company
 Person-in-charge
        (signature) :
 Address
        :
 Telephone
        :
 
 *(all
        Parties signed and stamped)*
 
 Signed
        on
        19 October, 1998