alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                               
|                                                                                                            
|Michigan Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Commercial Sectors by Marketers (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                            
|Michigan Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Commercial Sectors by Marketers (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 9.71   |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 7.61   |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LAURA CERRACCHIO,

Respondent

v.

DAVID J. ZUKOWSKI,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 446 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Com. v. Johns

03/30/2016

385 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 107
#### COM. v. ASCENZI, M.

1346 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/02/2017

CP-40-SA-0000158-2016

(Luzerne)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         173,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (5,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               281,184
<PP&E>                                          29,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (12,165)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,757
<BONDS>                                         98,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       788,500
<OTHER-SE>                                    (617,104)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   298,253
<SALES>                                        546,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               546,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (6,645)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (82,711)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (96,696)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)


</TABLE>
LEXINGTON HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Years Ended June 30,
                                                               2000           1999          1998
                                                         --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>             <C>
Net income (loss)                                          $(4,103,000)   $(1,577,000)      $30,000
                                                           -----------    -----------     ---------

Net income (loss) for basic earnings per common share      $(4,103,000)   $(1,577,000)      $30,000
                                                           ===========    ===========     =========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
during the year                                              3,568,000      4,125,000     4,125,000
                                                           -----------    -----------     ---------

Weighted average number of shares used in calculation of
basic earnings per share                                     3,568,000      4,125,000     4,125,000
                                                           ===========    ===========     =========

Basic earnings (loss) per common share                          $(1.15)        $(0.38)         $.01
                                                           ===========    ===========     =========
</TABLE>

Earnings per common share is computed using the weighted average number of
shares deemed outstanding. Dilutive earnings per share has not been presented as
the potentially dilutive stock options and warrants are anti-dilutive.
No. 12-8367.

#### Nettles *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

> C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Related Links 

# Oil & Gas Code Definitions

Code Type: **Well Type Get List** 


### Select code type and click on "Get List"



# Well Status Definitions

Code Definition A Active AB Abandoned (Shut-In > 12 Months) DRL Drilling DRY Dry Hole EXP Expired Permit IA Inactive (Shut-In >= 3 and <= 12 Months) LOC Permitted Location to Drill PA Plugged and Abandoned PNC Permit Now Cancelled PNS Permit Now Suspended TA Temporarily Abandoned TAO Temporarily Abandoned - Observation

[ DMR Home ] [ Disclaimer ] [ Privacy ] [ Security ] [ Feedback ] Well Search 

### Page 1 of 1 NDIC Oil & Gas Code Help Index

2/ 4/ 2013 https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/codehelp.aspFrom: Kirby, Nathan J. To: Brent Ruminski Cc: Ritter, Alison M. Subject: RE: Data Use Agreement for NDIC Subscription Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 5:05:19 PM

Brent,

Per our disclaimer at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/disclaimer.asp . We as an agency hold no ownership of the data, it is provided as is and free to use. The only cost is with the subscription to access it electronically.

Thanks Nathan

Nathan J. Kirby Database Design Analyst II NDIC Oil and Gas Division 701-328-8020

From: Brent Ruminski [mailto:Brent.Ruminski@erg.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:18 AM To: Kirby, Nathan J. Subject: Data Use Agreement for NDIC Subscription

Hi Nathan, My name is Brent Ruminski, an engineer at Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). I just spoke with one of your colleagues named Allison and she provided me your contact information. For background information, my company is under contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and we had a “basic subscription” service that recently expired. The reason I am contacting you is we currently have a unique situation where we performed several analyses using data obtained through our “basic subscription” with NDIC. We performed these analyses to support an EPA rulemaking. Part of the rulemaking process requires EPA to release as much their analyses and raw data to the public as possible with the exceptions of copyrighted data. After reviewing the agreement and your website, I do not see any copyright claims or data use agreement. Can you please confirm that the raw data obtained through the “basic subscription” with NDIC is not copyrighted and that NDIC does not object to EPA publishing this raw data electronically on regulations.gov. Of course, full citation to NDIC will be provided with the data. I provided the specific data we used in the attachment (I deleted most rows to minimize file size). We also recorded monthly production numbers using the subscription service which would also be published. Please let me know If you would like to set up a call to discuss further or need any other information. Thank you, Brent Ruminski Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 14555 Avion Parkway Suite 200Chantilly, VA 20151 703-633-1701 (office)
#### David A. Dobbs, Appellant, v Colin Smith, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 860]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered August 8, 2016, which granted the motion by defendant Colin M. Smith residing in Astoria, New York (mov-ant), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and marked the case as “disposed,” unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to clarify that the complaint is dismissed as against movant only, and that the disposition is non-final, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Movant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract claims against him was correctly granted upon movant’s unrebutted showing that he was not the “Colin M. Smith” with whom plaintiff had contracted. However, since movant sought dismissal only as against himself, plaintiff’s request that the action be allowed to continue against the individual who, it appears, assumed movant’s identity, i.e., the “Colin M. Smith” who represented himself to be an attorney with law offices at 721 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022, and purported to enter into the subject contract, should have been granted *(see*CPLR 5019 [a]; *see e.g. Ansonia Assoc, v Ansonia Tenants Coalition,*171 AD2d 411 [1st Dept 1991]; *Follender v Maxim,*44 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept 2007]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 190 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 190

 To repeal the mandatory 20 percent income tax withholding on eligible 
           rollover distributions which are not rolled over.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 26 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

 Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the mandatory 20 percent income tax withholding on eligible 
           rollover distributions which are not rolled over.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MANDATORY 20 PERCENT INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING ON 
              ELIGIBLE IRA ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTIONS WHICH ARE NOT ROLLED 
              OVER.

    (a) Repeal of Withholding Requirement.--Subsection (b) of section 
522 of the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992 (relating to 
withholding on eligible rollover distributions which are not rolled 
over), and the amendments made by such subsection, are hereby repealed, 
and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered 
as if such subsection, and amendments, had never been enacted.
    (b) Offset.--The President is authorized to reduce obligations and 
expenditures for programs, projects, and activities authorized under 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except for allocation of funds for 
countries specified in law, by such sums as are necessary to offset the 
loss of revenues under subsection (a).

                                 <all>
```
# L_2010102EN.01003301.xml

| 23.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/33

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 339/2010

of 22 April 2010

granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 20 April 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 April 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 April 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
#### Weissbrod, Matter of, v DoPico

App Div, 1st Dept: 2014 NY Slip Op 76844(U)

denied
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13134]

[[Page 27084]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 11:01 a.m. on 
Tuesday, May 12, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's corporate and supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Joseph H. Neely (Appointive), seconded by Ellen S. Seidman (Director, 
Office of Thrift Supervision), concurred in by Acting Chairman Andrew 
C. Hove, Jr., that Corporation business required its consideration of 
the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no 
earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest 
did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to 
public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in 
the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), 
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: May 12, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13134 Filed 5-13-98; 3:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
```
No. 12-7678.

#### Smoot *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of John George Siracusa, an Attorney, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 778]

— Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and (g). Present—Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 25 -C R

______________________________ APRI L SUZ ANNE RHOT EN, Appe llant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 241st J udicial District Court

Smit h County , Texas Trial Court No. 241-0768- 08

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

r t e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ.2 O R D E R Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for the appellant, has filed a motion to extend time to file the appellant' s brief. The brief w as due June 1, 2009. I n his moti on, counsel doe s not provide the Court with a rea sonable e x planation of the ne ed fo r a n e xten sio n o f t ime , s ta tin g on ly that he ha d " be e n p re pa

ri ng the br ie f i n th is m a tte r a lon g wi th
se ve ra l ot he r a pp e a ls" a nd

tha t he wa s p re pa

ri ng fo r t ri a l a nd lis tin g thr e e dif

fe re nt ca us e nu mbe rs . This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)( 1) of the Texas Rules of Appe llate Proce dure a s requiring counsel to p ro vid e the Court

wi th sp e c if

ic inf or ma tio n to jus tif

y the re qu e ste d e xten sio n, inc lud ing the c a us e
nu mbe rs of

the oth e r br ie fs fi le d, the da te s the y we re fi le d, the da te s of tr ia ls, ho w l on g tho se tr ia ls
a re e xpe c te d to la st, e tc . G e ne ri c sta te me nts do no t pr ov ide the re qu ir e d fa c ts a nd a re no t a de qu a te to meet the re quirements of the rule. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.5(b)(1). All future motions to ex tend time must contain case -spec ific informa tion adequate to justi fy the re quest, or they

will be denied. I n this in s ta

n c e , w e g r a n t th e mo ti o n f o r a n e xte n s io n , f

o r a p e r io d o f th ir

ty d a y s f r om the orig inal due date of the brie f, making the brief no w d u e J uly

1, 2009. No furthe r re quests will be looked on with favor
.3

I T I S SO ORDERED.

B Y T HE CO UR T

Date: J une 9, 2009
No. 12-787.

No. 12-7995.

#### Minor *v.*United States; and Teel *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 691 F. 3d 578.
#### Wilmington Trust Company, as Successor Trustee to Bank of America National Association, Respondent, v *410Audrey Walker et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[51 NYS3d 64]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered September 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants Audrey Walker and Dawn Walker are individuals who executed a mortgage and corresponding promissory note in connection with a residential property located in Bronx County. On appeal, they argue that plaintiff, the trustee of a Trust which holds their mortgage, does not have standing to bring this action.

Plaintiff has standing in this residential mortgage foreclosure action, as it provided prima facie evidence that it was the assignee of the subject mortgage, and the holder and assignee of the underlying note at the time this action was commenced in September 2009 *(OneWest Bank FSB v Carey,*104 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2013]; *Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. NA v Sachar, 95*AD3d 695, 695-696 [1st Dept 2012]). Plaintiff submitted a pooling and servicing agreement which shows that both the mortgage and the note were assigned to the Trust in June 2007.

In addition, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of the Vice President for Loan Documentation for the Trust’s Servicer, who attested that, on July 1, 2009, the original note was physically delivered to plaintiff’s attorneys, and that they retained this note at the time of commencement. These statements are sufficient to show that plaintiff had physical possession of the note prior to commencement of this action *(see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Jones,*139 AD3d 520, 523-524 [1st Dept 2016]; *U.S. Bank N.A. v Askew,*138 AD3d 402, 402 [1st Dept 2016]; *Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Idarecis,*133 AD3d 702, 703 [2d Dept 2015]).

The individual defendants’ argument that plaintiff violated a rule promulgated by Chief Judge Lippman (Administrative Order of Chief Admin Judge of Cts AO/548/10, dated Oct. 20, 2010) by not submitting an attorney affirmation certifying that the residential mortgage documents were complete and accurate is unavailing. Administrative Order AO/548/10 was amended in March 2011 by Administrative Order AO/431/11, which provided that, in pending cases, such affirmation could *411be submitted along with the proposed judgment of foreclosure. Here, as the proposed judgment of foreclosure had not been submitted to the trial court as of the date of the trial court’s decision, there is no violation.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.