alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Mississippi Natural Gas Balancing Item  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Mississippi Natural Gas Balancing Item  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1   | Year-2   | Year-3   | Year-4   | Year-5   | Year-6   | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ------- | ------- | --------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |          |          |          |          |          |          | 103,903 | 132,333 | 205,260 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 225,113 | 9,829    | 61,574   | 4,354    | 83,485   | 36,475   | 117,363  | 12,299  | 36,427  | -31,050 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | -70,763 | -202,473 | -162,502 | -143,681 | -120,205 | -128,560 | -127,003 | -93,276 | -97,761 | -126,371
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -60,872 | -85,437  | -104,629 |          |          |          |          |         |         |         
|- = 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2010 

p0421 

Order 

 

April 28, 2010 

139741 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139741 

 COA: 292400 

Genesee CC: 95-052293-FH 

MICHAEL ALONZO THOMPSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
|                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                        
|                                                                                                     
|No chart available.                                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                                  
|                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                     
|Louisiana Natural Gas % of Total Residential Consumers Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1359

To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to require the domestic production

of food stamp coupons.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 4 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SIMON, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr.

WOFFORD, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. KERREY, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. JOHNSTON)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to require the

domestic production of food stamp coupons.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Food Stamp

5 Anti-Counterfeiting Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—

8 (1) the face value of food stamp coupons print9 ed each year exceeds $20,000,000,000, and more
2

•S 1359 IS

1 than 27,000,000 residents of the United States par2 ticipate in the food stamp program authorized under

3 the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et

4 seq.);

5 (2) food stamps are a legal obligation of the

6 United States;

7 (3) throughout the history of the food stamp

8 program, the policy of the United States Depart9 ment of Agriculture for the production of food

10 stamp coupons has been to produce the coupons

11 within the United States;

12 (4) in 1991, the Committee on Appropriations

13 of the Senate reiterated the expectation of the Com14 mittee that the policy would continue;

15 (5) the United States Department of Agri16 culture recently indicated that the Department in17 tends to change the policy of the Department so as

18 to permit foreign production of food stamps;

19 (6) removing the production of these legal obli20 gations of the United States from the United States

21 could limit the reach of enforcement authorities of

22 the Federal Government and undermine enforcement

23 of criminal laws on counterfeiting and misappropria24 tion of food stamps, thus threatening the integrity

25 of the food stamp program;
3

•S 1359 IS

1 (7) for security reasons, Federal laws in effect

2 on the date of enactment of this Act already require

3 the domestic production of the distinctive paper used

4 in the manufacturing of other forms of currency and

5 secure paper, such as food stamps; and

6 (8) it is in the public interest for food stamps

7 to be produced domestically to enable law enforce8 ment agencies to prevent counterfeiting and theft.

9 SEC. 3. DOMESTIC PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR FOOD

10 STAMP COUPONS.

11 Section 7(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7

12 U.S.C. 2016(a)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘shall be

13 printed’’ the following: ‘‘within the United States and’’.

Æ
#### Com. v. Corley

03/30/2016

643 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 104
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Ohio Natural Gas Percent Sold to The Residential Consumers by Local Distribution Companies (Percent)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Ohio Natural Gas Percent Sold to The Residential Consumers by Local Distribution Companies (Percent)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 58.77  |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 43.70  | 40.82  | 30.88  | 19.79  | 20.02  | 20.07  | 19.12  | 17.74  | 16.81  | 16.46 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 16.27  | 16.38  | 18.03  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Eastport, ID Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Eastport, ID Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports (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      | 1      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# EUR-Lex - 32010M6008 - EN

*|*

# 32010M6008

**Commission Decision of 29/10/2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6008 - IK / GHD) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

(.PICT.) |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 29.10.2010

SG-Greffe(2010) D/17251

C(2010) 7663

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying party:

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6008 – IK/ GHD Notification of 29/09/2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 273, 09/10/2010, p.4

1. On 29/09/2010 the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the IK Investment Partners ("IK", the Netherlands) acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of GHD GesundHeits GmbH Deutschland (GHD, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- IK: a European private equity investment firm;

- GHD: active in the provision of medical devices and certain pharmaceutical products to non-hospitalized patients, wholesale of medical devices and pharmaceuticals, provision of logistic services in Germany, as well as production of compounded pharmaceuticals and ostomy products.

2. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(b) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

3. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the European Commission, (Signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1474 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1474

    To restore equal treatment of foreign military sales and direct 
           commercial sales in nonrecurring cost recoupment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 20 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

  Mr. Pell (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restore equal treatment of foreign military sales and direct 
           commercial sales in nonrecurring cost recoupment.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF FOREIGN MILITARY SALES AND 
              DIRECT COMMERCIAL SALES IN NONRECURRING COST RECOUPMENT.

    (a) Elimination of the Requirement for Recoupment of Nonrecurring 
Cost Charges.--Section 21(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
2761(e)) is amended--
            (1) by repealing subparagraph (1)(B);
            (2) by adding at the end of subparagraph (1)(A) ``and'';
            (3) by redesignating subparagraph (1)(C) as subparagraph 
        (1)(B);
            (4) by repealing paragraph (2); and
            (5) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of subsection (a) of this 
section shall be effective for letters of offer for the sale of defense 
articles or for the sale of defense services issued pursuant to the 
Arms Export Control Act upon enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12673]


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

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]


Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, Units 1 and 2; Correction

    The April 27, 1998, Federal Register contained a ``Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing,'' for the Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 1 and 2. This notice corrects the notice published in the 
Federal Register on April 27, 1998 (63 FR 20667). The application date 
should read August 1, 1996, instead of August 6, 1996.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of May 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Capra,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-12673 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Marina Zabezhanskaya, Respondent, v Peter Dinhofer, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 870]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated May 2, 2002, as denied his motion for leave to renew, reargue, or vacate a prior “decision on remand” of the same court dated March 16, 2001.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

By decision and order dated July 17, 2000, this Court modified a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 9, 1998, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to recalculate the amount of child support arrears owed by the defendant and for the entry of an amended judgment of divorce *(see Zabezhanskaya v Dinhofer,*274 AD2d 476 [2000]). The Supreme Court later issued a “decision on remand” and an amended judgment of divorce incorporating the “decision on remand.”

The appellant improperly has taken an appeal from the order denying his motion for leave to renew, reargue, or vacate the “decision on remand,” as no appeal lies from an order denying renewal, reargument, or vacatur of a decision *(see Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Culley,*144 AD2d 363 [1988]; *Plaxall, Inc. v Obes Intl. Moving Servs.,*119 AD2d 560 [1986]; *De Falco v JRS Confectionary,*118 AD2d 752 [1986]; *Matter of Metropolitan Prop.& Liab. Ins. Co. v Boisette,*105 AD2d 785 [1984]). Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant’s rem*522edy was to take an appeal from the amended judgment of divorce. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
No. 11-10604.

#### Nestor *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.