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:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Greece (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Greece (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb | Mar   | Apr   | May   | Jun   | Jul   | Aug   | Sep | Oct   | Nov | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | --- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | --- | ----- | --- | -----
|2019                                                                                                                              |       |     |       |       |       |       |       |       |     |       |     | 6,346
|                                                                                                                                 
|2020                                                                                                                              | 5,313 |     | 2,540 | 3,233 | 3,430 |       |       |       |     |       |     |      
|2021                                                                                                                              | 600   |     |       |       | 6,796 |       | 6,651 | 3,607 |     | 1,515 | 650 | 5,305
|2022                                                                                                                              | 178   |     | 773   | 1,336 | 5,020 | 2,399 |       | 1,662 |     |       | 421 |      
|2023                                                                                                                              |       |     | 2,513 | 3,493 |       |       |       |       |     |       |     | 1,307
|- = 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 Matter of the Claim of Robert M. Cooney, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 526]

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 24, 2002, which reduced claimant’s benefit rate to zero.

After 29 years of service with Bell Atlantic, claimant left in the beginning of March 1998 and started working for Lucent Technologies, Inc. later that same month. At the time he left Bell Atlantic, claimant received a lump-sum distribution from a pension plan funded by Bell Atlantic and rolled it into an existing individual retirement account in his name. He subsequently enrolled in a pension plan funded by Lucent and, pursuant to a portability agreement between the two companies, was permitted to transfer the pension moneys which originated in the Bell Atlantic plan from his individual retirement account back to Bell Atlantic, which then transferred the moneys to the pension plan at Lucent. After working for Lucent for approximately three years, he was laid off. Following his layoff, claimant received unemployment insurance benefits of $405 per week, as well as monthly pension benefits in the amount of $2,866. In July 2002, claimant was notified by the Department of Labor that his benefit rate was being reduced to zero due to his receipt of pension benefits. He challenged this determination and, following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the reduction of claimant’s benefit rate. Upon appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remitted the matter for a hearing to further develop the record on this issue. Following the hearing, the Board upheld the reduction of claimant’s benefit rate, and this appeal by claimant ensued.

“Labor Law § 600 (7) provides for a reduction in unemployment insurance benefits whenever an employee receives employer-funded retirement benefits regardless of whether they are distributed monthly or in a lump-sum payment which the employee reinvests in an individual retirement account” *(Mat*
      *1026
      *ter of Rolland [Eastman Kodak Co.—Sweeney],*232 AD2d 710, 710 [1996] [citations omitted]; *see Matter of Knox [Commissioner of Labor],*286 AD2d 797, 797 [2001]). Here, claimant admitted that he did not make any contributions to the plans funded by Bell Atlantic or Lucent. Contrary to claimant’s assertion, the fact that the moneys were transferred to an individual retirement account before they were combined with the funds held in the Lucent pension plan did not change their character as employer contributions and, thereby, render the provisions of Labor Law § 600 (7) inapplicable. We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of BMW of North America, LLC, Appellant, v Howard Riina et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 372]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 14, 2015, which, inter alia, denied BMW’s motions to vacate an arbitration award, dated February 19, 2014, and for a preliminary injunction to stay its compliance with the arbitration award, confirmed the arbitration award, and awarded judgment in favor of respondents in the total amount of $96,724.24, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.

Respondents’ complaint — that the new car they purchased from BMW was inappropriately outfitted with “runflat” tires and 19” wheel rims that regularly developed “bubbles” in the sidewalls of the tires due to the rough road conditions in West-chester County and New York City, thereby compromising the car’s safety and handling — failed to state a claim under the Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-a). Respondents failed to present any evidence to show a defect in materials or workmanship that was covered by the car manufacturer’s express warranties (see *generally*General Business Law § 198-a [b] [1]; *Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer,*7 NY3d 653 [2006]; *Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York,*75 NY2d 175 [1990]).

Tires were expressly excluded from BMW’s warranties. No evidence was offered to show that the tires and wheel rims used on the vehicle were incompatible with the car and its operation. There was no basis to find that the value of the car was substantially impaired by the use of the alleged inappropriate tires and wheel rims *(see generally*General Business Law § 198-a [c] [1]; *Spitzer,*7 NY3d 653). Accordingly, we find that the arbitration award lacks a rational basis, and is unsupported by adequate evidence in the record *(see generally Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn.,*75 NY2d 175).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                        
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Ohio Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Ohio 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                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |         |         |         |           | 14        | 17        | 13       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 11        | 2,540     | 12,773    | 100,117 | 447,809 | 956,162 | 1,389,718 | 1,717,456 | 2,354,791 | 2,600,871
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,346,589 | 2,217,278 | 2,180,770 |         |         |         |           |           |           |          
|- = 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
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21.1



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------

The following companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Registrant:

         o        NV Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation

         o        Impact Multimedia, Inc., a Nevada corporation

         o        NV Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation

         o        Infinity Vision Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation

         o        Siliwood Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation

         o        Intelecon Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation

         o        3D2Net.com, Inc., a Nevada corporation.

         o        Astounding.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation
# L_2010243EN.01006801.xml

| 16.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 243/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/68

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2010/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 207 of 6 August 2010
  )

On the cover, in the title:

for:

‘Directive 2010/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 ...’,

read:

‘Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 ...’;

on page 14, in the title of the Directive:

for:

‘DIRECTIVE 2010/45/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 July 2010 ...’,

read:

‘DIRECTIVE 2010/53/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 July 2010 ...’.

---
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 14,500 | 13,898
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 13,898 | 12,036 | 12,178 | 12,178 | 12,178 | 12,178 | 12,178 | 8,894  | 8,894  | 8,894 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 8,894  | 8,894  | 8,894  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# L_2010174DE.01005401.xml

| 9.7.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 174/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 174/54

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 176/2010 der Kommission vom 2. März 2010 zur Änderung des Anhangs D der Richtlinie 92/65/EWG des Rates bezüglich Besamungsstationen und Samendepots, Embryo-Entnahmeeinheiten und Embryo-Erzeugungseinheiten, hinsichtlich der Anforderungen an Spenderpferde, Spenderschafe und Spenderziegen sowie der Bedingungen für den Umgang mit Sperma, Eizellen und Embryonen der betreffenden Tierarten

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 52 vom 3. März 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 52 vom 3. März 2010

Auf Seite 21, im Anhang in Bezug auf Anhang D Kapitel II Abschnitt I Nummer 1.6 Buchstabe b Ziffer ii zweiter Gedankenstrich der Richtlinie 92/65/EWG:

anstatt:

„im Fall des Tests gemäß Nummer 1.5 Buchstabe b mindestens alle 30 Tage, es sei denn, der Status des serologisch positiv auf den Erreger der infektiösen Arteriitis der Pferde reagierenden Hengstes als Nichtausscheider wird durch eine alle zwei Jahre durchzuführende Untersuchung mittels Virusisolierung bestätigt;“

muss es heißen:

„im Fall des Tests gemäß Nummer 1.5 Buchstabe b mindestens alle 30 Tage, es sei denn, der Status des serologisch positiv auf den Erreger der infektiösen Arteriitis der Pferde reagierenden Hengstes als Nichtausscheider wird durch eine zweimal pro Jahr durchzuführende Untersuchung mittels Virusisolierung bestätigt;“.

Auf Seite 21, im Anhang in Bezug auf Anhang D Kapitel II Abschnitt I Nummer 1.6 Buchstabe c Absatz 2 der Richtlinie 92/65/EWG:

anstatt:

„abweichend von Ziffer ii sind die Probenahme nach der Samengewinnung und der Test auf infektiöse Arteriitis der Pferde gemäß Nummer 1.5 Buchstabe b nicht erforderlich, sofern der Status des serologisch positiv auf den Erreger der infektiösen Arteriitis des Pferdes reagierenden Hengstes als Nichtausscheider durch eine alle zwei Jahre durchzuführende Untersuchung mittels Virusisolierung bestätigt wird;“

muss es heißen:

„abweichend von Ziffer ii sind die Probenahme nach der Samengewinnung und der Test auf infektiöse Arteriitis der Pferde gemäß Nummer 1.5 Buchstabe b nicht erforderlich, sofern der Status des serologisch positiv auf den Erreger der infektiösen Arteriitis des Pferdes reagierenden Hengstes als Nichtausscheider durch eine zweimal pro Jahr durchzuführende Untersuchung mittels Virusisolierung bestätigt wird;“.

---
No. 12-7234.

#### Novak v. United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### WILLIAMS et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13140.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 1950.

M. L. Miller, Dallas, Texas, James H. Martin, Dallas, Texas, for appellant.

William Cantrell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Texas, for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, convicted and sentenced' on both counts of an indictment charging conspiracy to obtain, and the unlawful obtaining of, a quantity of marihuana, are here putting forward and arguing, for reversal of the judgment and sentence, only one substantial ground, the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The United States, insisting that the evidence is sufficient to justify the jury’s verdict of guilty as to both appellants on both counts, urges that the judgment must be affirmed as to both.

A careful reading of the record in the light of these contentions leaves us in no doubt that the evidence amply supports the verdict and judgment as to appellant Albert Williams. It leaves us equally in no doubt that it does not support the conviction as to Katie Thompson.

*614The judgment on the appeal of Albert Williams is, therefore, affirmed. On the appeal of Katie Thompson, it is reversed and the cause.is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.
Exhibit 99.01


I, Michael S. Steiner, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DRYCLEAN USA,
Inc.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly
Report;

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

Date: February 10, 2003

/s/ Michael S. Steiner
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Steiner
President and Principal Executive Officer


                                       23
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00684-CV

IN RE THE WILLA PETERS HUBBERD TESTAMENTARY TRUST

From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1986-PC-1440

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 26, 2013

ABATED AND REMANDED

The parties have filed a joint motion, stating that they have fully resolved and settled all 

issues in dispute. Noting that we have questioned whether the trial court’s order is a final, 

appealable order, the parties have requested that we abate this appeal, thereby imbuing the trial 

court with whatever jurisdiction we may have, and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of 

judgment in conformity with their settlement agreement. 

We grant the motion, abate this appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of 

judgment in conformity with the settlement agreement. Costs of appeal are taxed against 

appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
# EUR-Lex - 32010M6000 - EN

*|*

# 32010M6000

**Commission Decision of 12/10/2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6000 - E.ON / PP (II)) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

(.PICT.)(.PICT.) |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 12.10.2010

SG-Greffe(2010) D/15957

C(2010) 7149

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.6000 - E.ON/ PP (II) Notification of 09.09.2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 249, 16.09.2010, p. 25

1. On 09.09.2010, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which E.ON Czech Holding AG ("ECH", Germany), ultimately controlled by E.ON AG ("E.ON", Germany), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Pražská plynárenská a.s. ("PP", Czech Republic), by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for ECH: supply of gas, electricity and heat in the Czech Republic;

- for PP: supply of gas and heat in the Czech Republic.

3. 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(d) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. 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 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.
No. 12-7331.

#### Dunlap *v.*Clements, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.