alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|West Virginia Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|West Virginia Natural Gas Lease Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         | 3,720  | 4,377  | 4,270  | 3,849  | 5,480  | 5,017  | 4,203 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 6,427   | 4,353   | 4,807   | 3,749  | 4,815  | 4,846  | 4,292  | 4,500  | 4,549  | 3,705 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6,720   | 6,384   | 7,420   | 4,881  | 4,277  | 6,729  | 8,339  | 6,483  | 8,423  | 11,348
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 11,348  | 15,571  | 21,569  | 28,682 | 42,427 | 50,851 | 54,045 | 59,224 | 69,002 | 84,053
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 100,152 | 104,331 | 113,904 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Price of Calais, ME Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Price of Calais, ME Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 14.05  | --    
|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
No. 12-7367.

#### Sapong *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
```

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  undersigned,  A.  F.  Petrocelli,  Chairman,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of United Capital Corp., (the "Company"),
does hereby  certify,  with  respect to the  Quarterly  Report of the Company on
Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") that:

1.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.

Date:  May 12, 2006

                                          By: /s/ A. F. Petrocelli
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              A. F. Petrocelli
                                              Chairman, President and Chief
                                              Executive Officer
```
No. 12-8410.

#### Perez-Pinon *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             PROCOM TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           STATE OR JURISDICTION
     NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY                                  OF INCORPORATION
     --------------------                                  -------------------
<S>                                                        <C>
     Procom Technology FSC                                 U.S. Virgin Islands
     Megabyte Computerhandels AG                           Germany
     Invincible Technology Acquisition Corp.               Massachusetts
     Procom AG, formerly known as Pera AG                  Switzerland
     Procom SPA, formerly known as Gigatek SRL             Italy
     Procom Technology, UK                                 United Kingdom
     Scofima Software SRL                                  Italy
</TABLE>

          All are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Procom Technology, Inc.
No. 12-281.

#### Harbatkin *v.*New York City Department of Records and Information Services et al.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
1 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00290 - CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .J., A CHILD

----------

FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant J.J. 2 attempts to appeal an interlocutory order for the monitored return of a child to a parent along with other pretrial rulings associated with that order

. The trial court’s July 25, 2011 “Order for Monitored Return of Child to Parent” appointed M.J., the mother, as temporary p ossessory conservator with care, custody, a nd control of the child, A.J. The order also provided that M.J. and A.J. must not have contact with appellant, who is A.J.’s father. The order did not purport to finally dispose of the suit; instead, it extended a dismissal date for the suit

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 The names of the parties have been replaced with their initials. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d) (West 2008).2

until January 21, 2012. 3 A ppellant filed notice of appeal, contending that the trial court had violated his constitutional and due process rights

. On August 26, 2011, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack jurisd iction over this appeal because it does not appear to arise from a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and we informed him that the appeal may be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing gro unds for continuing the appeal. We received a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal ; the response confirms that appellant is appealing pretrial rulings

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam . Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (West 2008 ); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2008 ) (listing types of appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that generally an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment and that a judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues) ; In re J.W.L. , 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) ( r eiterating that temporary order s in family law c ases are not appealable) ;

see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: October 13 , 2011

3 See id. § 263.403 (West 2008).
No. 12-7735.

#### Seale *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Horace Thomas, Appellant.

[630 NYS2d 934]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered January 7, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Egitto, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the *Wade*hearing supports the hearing court’s determination that the complainant’s identification of the defendant and his codefendant was confirmatory *(see, People v Budhai,*182 AD2d 693; *People v Brown,*161 AD2d 721; *People v Toussant,*136 AD2d 666).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that the defendant and his codefendant intended to kill the complainant *(see, People v Dixon,*174 AD2d 689; *People v Perron,*172 AD2d 879) and that they were acting in concert when the other victim was killed *(see, People v McLeod,*168 AD2d 461). It is well settled that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier-of-fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its. determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Double jeopardy did not bar the second trial in this case because the first mistrial was not granted as a result of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor *(see, Matter of Roman v Brown,*175 AD2d 899; *People v Sorenson,*118 AD2d 607).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.3








CERTIFICATION








I, W. Lance Anderson, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this amendment on Form 10-K/A to the annual report on Form 10-K of Novation Companies, Inc., as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015;





2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;








Date:April 30, 2015/s/ W. Lance AndersonW. Lance AndersonChairman of the Board of Directors andChief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for **

the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANGRONG HE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-71424

Agency No. A097-856-065

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 5, 2010

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.** 

Petitioner Changrong He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which summarily 

FILED

OCT 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

affirmed the finding of the immigration judge (“IJ”) that petitioner was not

credible. We deny the petition.

The Court reviews the IJ’s decision when the BIA affirms the IJ without an

opinion of its own. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005)

(en banc). The IJ’s credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial

evidence, Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), and may

be reversed only if the evidence petitioner presented was “so compelling that no

reasonable fact finder could find that [petitioner] was not credible.” Kin v. Holder,

595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,

1156 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find

that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it . . . .”). In this

pre-REAL ID Act case, so long as one of the grounds the IJ identified in support of

the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes

to the heart of petitioner’s claim of persecution, the adverse credibility finding will

be upheld. See Cortez-Pineda, 610 F.3d at 1124 (citing Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d

959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

In this case, the IJ primarily based his adverse credibility finding on

petitioner’s omission from her asylum application that she was employed in China
3

by Voice of Asia, a car audio company, and that petitioner had come to the United

States on Voice of Asia’s behalf to conduct business with a company called

Clarion. This omission calls into question whether petitioner experienced the

persecution she alleged the Chinese government perpetrated against her, and thus

goes to the heart of petitioner’s claim of persecution. Substantial evidence

supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the evidence does not

compel a contrary conclusion.

Because at least one of the grounds the IJ identified in support of his adverse

credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and went to the

heart of petitioner’s claim of persecution, the petition is DENIED.
No. 12-6709.

#### Chamberlain *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Fitmedia Inc. - Exhibit 10.6










February 1, 2006 

Professor Roman Onufrijchuk 
roman@sfu.ca 
Vancouver, BC 

Dear Professor: 

RE: TERMS OF APPOINTMENT AS NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Fitmedia Inc. (the "Company") is pleased to confirm our
agreement that for the fiscal year beginning on February 1, 2006, you shall be
compensated with the following: 

	US $1,000 cash
  
	2,500 common shares of the Company 
(the "Compensation"). 


The Compensation shall be paid to you for your services for the
full year.

Indemnification 
To the fullest extent permitted by
the Company's charter documents and applicable law, the Company agrees to defend
and indemnify you and hold you harmless against any liability that you incur
within the scope of your service as a director of the Company. 

You may indicate your agreement with these terms by signing and
dating this letter agreement. 

Very truly yours, 

FITMEDIA INC. 

	/s/
      Timothy J. Crottey 	 
	Timothy J. Crottey 	 
	Chairman of the Board 	 


I have read and accept and agree to the above terms of service:


	/s/
      Roman Onufrijchuk	 
	Signature of Professor Roman Onufrijchuk 	 
	Dated February 1, 2006
Exhibit 11.1

# MESTEK, INC.

# SCHEDULE OF
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

|                                            | Three Months Ended
June 30, |           | Six Months Ended
June 30, |          
|------------------------------------------- | --------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------- | ---------
|
|
|Net Income (Loss)                           | $20,564                     | ($ 9,472) | $19,775                   | ($18,139)
|Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share:    
|Net Income (Loss)                           | $    2.39                   | ($  1.09) | $    2.28                 | ($  2.08)
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding   | 8,604                       | 8,722     | 8,678                     | 8,722    
|Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share:  
|Net Income (Loss)                           | $    2.38                   | ($  1.09) | $    2.28                 | ($  2.08)
|Diluted Weighted Average Shares Outstanding | 8,622                       | 8,722     | 8,684                     | 8,722
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Mestek, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge: 

 

 (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 14, 2006

 

/s/ John E. Reed                                                                            

John E. Reed

Chief Executive Officer 

 

/s/ Stephen M. Shea                                                                      

Stephen M. Shea

Chief Financial Officer 

 

This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                   U.S. WIRELESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

     The schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
financial  statements  for  the six  months  ended  September  30,  1997  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.


</LEGEND>
       

<S>                                  <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                   sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                                               7,000
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         0
<PP&E>                                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   3,633,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              464,000 
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                            57,000  
<OTHER-SE>                                                       2,265,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     3,633,000
<SALES>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         0
<CGS>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (1,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (1,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (1,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          (0)
        





</TABLE>
No. 12-5107.

#### Rodriguez Velazquez *v.*Weinman et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-6990.

#### Heyward *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.