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:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Alabama Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed from Natural Gas  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Alabama Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed from Natural 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 40,233 | 40,090 | 47,185 | 22,252 | 20,220 | 19,882 | 18,893 | 18,697 | 20,262 | 22,131
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 20,792 | 20,146 | 26,719 | 25,320 | 26,980 | 26,580 | 27,006 | 27,205 | 26,612 | 23,956
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 22,618 | 21,374 | 19,060 | 19,092 | 19,092 | 17,715 | 16,097 | 16,529 | 17,394 | 16,658
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 14,418 | 18,972 | 0      | 0      | NA     | 0      | NA     | NA     | NA     | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 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
# DLA leaders discuss cybersecurity, supplier survey with industry associations

/ Published April 23, 2019

Defense Logistics Agency Director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams and his senior staff met with industry association leaders April 18 to discuss topics including cybersecurity in acquisition processes and feedback from the recent DLA Supplier Survey. DLA is nothing without its industry connections, Williams told representatives from the Aerospace Industries Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Apparel & Footwear Association, SourceAmerica, National Defense Transportation Association, Professional Services Council and National Defense Industrial Association.The meetings are held to encourage transparency and open dialogue between DLA and industry, Williams added.Matthew Beebe, DLA’s acquisition director, initiated the dialogue with a discussion on contractor cybersecurity. Association leaders expressed concerns about the cost of the Defense Department’s plans to include cybersecurity in acquisition processes. DLA leaders acknowledged industry’s concerns and outlined alternatives such as DOD or the government providing a secure environment for small businesses to operate in.DLA Ombudsman Tim Stark also presented results of the DLA Supplier Survey conducted in fall 2018. The survey measured four vectors: DLA Communication, DLA Supplier Relationship, Growth and Profit Potential, and DLA Effectiveness.Seventeen areas within those vectors were assessed and drew almost 3,000 responses. DLA’s highest score was in “trustworthy communications” but was countered by results in “innovation.” Overall, industry rated DLA with a neutral score of three in all areas but one, Stark said. The scores will now become a baseline for performance and improvements until the next survey is conducted in 2020.The meeting ended with a reminder that DLA Industry Day will be held July 31. The event will include discussions and a review of the fiscal 2019-2020 strategic vision and metrics, updates on DoD’s and DLA’s acquisition reform efforts, and forecasted business opportunities.For more information on the survey, visit the 2018 DLA Supplier Feedback Survey and overall results page.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6168

In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-3)

Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Hood petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the

district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2002) petition. He seeks an order from this

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket

sheet reveals that the district court dismissed his petition on

March 10, 2003. Accordingly, because the district court has

recently decided Hood’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as

moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
# DSCR Readies for Statewide Tornado Drill

/ Published March 19, 2019
Richmond, Va., 
Tornados might seem out of place in Virginia, which is nowhere near America’s so-called Tornado Alley, but they do happen here. And when they do, the aftermath can be devastating, which is why Defense Logistics Agency Aviation at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, employees participate in a Statewide Tornado Drill each year.

The Virginia Department of Emergency Management designated Tuesday, March 19, for this year’s drill, which began at 9:45 am. At that time, the National Weather Service sent a test tornado warning over National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather radios, and a test message was also broadcast on local television stations.

William H. Bullock Sr., installation emergency manager with Security and Emergency Services, DLA Installation Management Richmond, said the drill is an opportunity for the entire installation to exercise the Occupant Emergency Plan. The primary steps of the plan are: seek shelter and accountability for all organizations on the installation.

To prep for the drill, Bullock said, a working group meeting was held March 7 to coordinate Installation Management resources and to review the exercise. “A system broadcast email message was sent out with a tornado checklist, and all activities and tenants should have an Occupant Emergency Plan that details the expectations of how our workforce should react to various natural disasters—including tornados,” he said.

“Every year, more and more members of the DSCR community actively participate in our installation level exercises thus improving the workforce’s ability to react to natural and manufactured threats,” Bullock says. “We are increasing their chances of surviving a dangerous or catastrophic event.”
No. 12-8533.

#### Ciresi *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to Chile (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to Chile (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | 13.91  | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |       
|- = 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
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION  I, James H. Moore, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mines Management, Inc. (the registrant); 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; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date:  August 11, 2006 /s/ James H. Moore  James H. Moore Chief Financial Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Olga Young, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Emilia's Diamonds, Inc., Doing Business as Fortune Jewels, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Emiliya's Diamonds, Inc., appellant pro se.Olga Young, respondent pro se.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered October 29, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,600.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,800, representing the balance allegedly due pursuant to defendant's agreement to purchase plaintiff's diamond ring and wedding band. After a nonjury trial, at which plaintiff, among other things, introduced defendant's check for the $1,800 upon which defendant had stopped payment, the Civil Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,600. Defendant appeals.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; <i>see</i> CCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126). </p><p>As the record supports the Civil Court's determination in favor of plaintiff, and as plaintiff has not cross-appealed from the judgment, we find that the parties were provided with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (<i>see</i> CCA 1804, 1807).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>SOLOMON, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 01, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**Exhibit
      32(a)**











**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
      I,
      Scott T. Ford, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.








/s/
      Scott T. Ford


Scott
      T.
      Ford


Chief
      Executive Officer and President


May
      8,
      2007



































A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ALLTEL Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Com. v. Gnacinski

03/30/2016

501 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 505
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.13

                             QUIT CLAIM ASSIGNMENT

                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Shawn Scott ("Scott") All
Capital LLC ("All Capital"), Vernon, LLC ("Vernon") and Capital One LLC
("Capital", and Scott, All Capital, Vernon and Capital One collectively the
"Assignor") does hereby transfer, sell, assign and convey unto Raceway Ventures,
LLC (the "Assignee") any and all rights of every kind, nature or description, if
any, which Assignor has to provide debt or equity financing to Mid-State
Raceway, Inc.

                  Except as herein expressly provided to the contrary, the
within assignment is being made by the Assignor (and accepted by the Assignee)
without representation, warranty, covenant or agreement of any kind nature or
description, including without limitation the existence of the rights herein
assigned and/or the right or ability of the Assignee to exercise and/or enforce
the rights herein assigned. Assignor represents that: (a) prior to the date
hereof the Assignor has not transferred, sold, assigned or conveyed the right
herein assigned, and/or any interest therein, to any person and/or entity; (b)
the execution, delivery and performance of this Assignment is within the power
and authority of the Assignor, has been authorized by the taking of all required
actions and does not violate the constitutional documents of the Assignor, and
(c) from and after the date hereof the Assignor shall not exercise or attempt to
exercise the within assigned right.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has executed this Quit Claim
Assignment this 10th day of April, 2004.

                                      All Capital, LLC

                                      By: /s/ Shawn Scott
                                         -------------------
                                      Name: Shawn Scott

                                      Vernon LLC

                                      By: /s/ Shawn Scott
                                         -------------------
                                      Name: Shawn Scott

                                      Capital One LLC

                                      By: /s/ Shawn Scott
                                         -------------------
                                      Name: Shawn Scott

                                      /s/ Shawn Scott
                                      -----------------------
                                      Shawn Scott, Individually
#### Grace, In re Estate of

10/07/2015

170 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 113 A.3d 360
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             200
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  726,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (58,600)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               692,100
<PP&E>                                       8,281,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,344,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,010,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          547,200
<BONDS>                                      1,093,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,721,800
<OTHER-SE>                                    (284,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,010,800
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,528,200
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,752,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (6,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                719,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   253,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            466,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   466,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE CASH TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  WE HAVE INCLUDED 
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN COST OF SERVICE AND 
PRODUCTS IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER
REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.1
                                          CONSENT OF PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP


                       Consent of Independent Accountants

            We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the
Registration  Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-05972) of COLT Telecom
Group  plc and in the  Registration  Statement  on Form  S-8  (Registration  No.
333-8362)  of COLT  Telecom  Group plc,  of our report  dated 26  February  2003
relating to the consolidated  financial  statements and the financial  statement
schedules, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors
London
England

27 June 2003