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:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Belgium (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Belgium (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | 4.43  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.04   | --     | 9.92   | 6.60   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 Giovanni G., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 355]—

*420Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2015, which denied appellant’s application to vacate his prior adjudication as a juvenile delinquent and to seal the records of that adjudication, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s application to dismiss the petition and vacate his juvenile delinquency adjudication, given the seriousness of the underlying sexual offense and the need for protection of the community (Family Ct Act § 315.2). The court also properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s application made pursuant to Family Court Act § 375.2 to seal the records of his juvenile delinquency adjudication. Given the serious nature of the underlying assault, the interest of justice would not be served by sealing these records *(see Matter of Rosa R.,*68 AD3d 407, 407 [1st Dept 2009]). “Appellant’s interests are adequately protected by the [automatic] confidentiality of Family Court records and the fact that juvenile delinquency adjudications do not entail civil disabilities *(see*Family Ct Act § 380.1). Sealing these records could potentially impede their use by law enforcement agencies for legitimate purposes in the event appellant engaged in further criminal activity” *(id.*at 407-408). Appellant has not substantiated his claim that this adjudication might subject him to sex offender registration if he relocates to another state.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from consolidated
financial statements found on the Quarterly Report on form 10-Q, September 30,
1998, 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                  632
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         7,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                             75
<INVENTORY>                                          20,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     31,075
<PP&E>                                               14,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                        5,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       44,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                13,308
<BONDS>                                              11,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                104
<OTHER-SE>                                           19,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         44,934
<SALES>                                              38,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     38,049
<CGS>                                                26,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        26,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         907
<INCOME-TAX>                                            183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     724
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                            724
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .07
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32(b)**











**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 September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery
      R. Gardner, Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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/
      Jeffery R. Gardner


_______________________________________


Jeffery
      R. Gardner


Executive
      Vice President - Chief Financial Officer


November
      8, 2005



































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.
No. 12-7627.

#### Maestri *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14228]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0027]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Entitled Contract 
Administration and Quality Assurance

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding extension to an 
existing OMB clearance (3090-0027).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of Acquisition Policy has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and 
approve an extension of a currently approved information collection 
requirement concerning Contract Administration and Quality Assurance.

DATES: Comment Due Date: July 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Matera, Office of GSA Acquisition 
Policy (202) 501-1224.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 
this burden, should be submitted to: Edward Springer, GSA Desk Officer, 
Room 3235, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and to Marjorie Ashby, General 
Services Administration (MVP), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose

    The GSA is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
review and approve information collection 3090-0027, Contract 
Administration and Quality Assurance. This information is used by 
various contract administration and other support offices for quality 
assurance, acceptance of supplies and services, shipments, and to 
justify payments.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 2,800; annual responses: 33,600; average hours per 
response: .05; burden hours: 2,800.

Copy of Proposal

    A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the GSA Acquisition 
Policy Division (MVP), Room 4011, GSA Building, 1800 F Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-3822, or by faxing 
your request to (202) 501-3341.

    Dated: May 21, 1998.
Ida M. Ustad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 98-14228 Filed 5-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-M
#### Gilbert DUDLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4220

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 10, 2017

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Raul A. Zambrano, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted February 1, 2018*

Decided February 1, 2018 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2388 

MICHELLE LUNDY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HEBRON HOUSE OF HOSPITALITY, 

INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 15-C-1127 

Lynn Adelman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Michelle Lundy, an African-American woman, filed this lawsuit against the 

operator of Hebron House, a homeless shelter, under the Fair Housing Act. She alleged 

that the shelter discriminated against her based on her race by unfairly requiring her to 

vacate the shelter after 90 days and denying her access to a rental-assistance program. 

The district court entered summary judgment for Hebron House, reasoning that Lundy 

had not adduced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is 

frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 17-2388 Page 2 

whether the shelter’s decisions were race-based and whether the shelter, as opposed to 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, had any decision-making 

authority with respect to rental assistance. 

Lundy appeals and contends that “remand is required because the appellees 

discriminated based on race and [failed] to accurately follow HUD [guidelines] for the 

Homeless Prevention / Rapid Re-Housing Program.” That is the sum total of her 

argument; she does not claim to have raised any material disputes of fact backed up 

with evidence, nor does she cite any legal authority that supports her broad conclusion. 

Instead she recounts her personal history and repeats allegations from her complaint 

(and in her reply brief, attempts to add new factual allegations). 

We construe pro se filings liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 

(7th Cir. 2001), but we cannot meaningfully review an appellate argument that consists 

of a single bald conclusion. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), see Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46, which requires that a 

brief contain a cogent argument with citations to authority. Although we “are generally 

disposed toward providing a litigant the benefit of appellate review,” we will not 

concoct arguments or conduct legal research for a litigant. Id. at 545. Because Lundy has 

not presented an argument, we must dismiss her appeal. 

DISMISSED
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1914

To allow holders of unclaimed Postal Savings System certificates of deposit

to file claims for such certificates.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 9 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To allow holders of unclaimed Postal Savings System

certificates of deposit to file claims for such certificates.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF HOLDERS OF POSTAL

4 SAVINGS SYSTEM CERTIFICATES.

5 Section 1322(c)(3) of title 31, United States Code,

6 is amended by striking ‘‘more than one’’ and all that fol7 lows through the period and inserting ‘‘after December 31,

8 1998.’’.
2

•S 1914 IS

1 SEC. 2. PUBLICITY REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

2 (a) POLICY OF CONGRESS.—It is the policy of the

3 Congress that every individual holding unclaimed Postal

4 Savings System certificates of deposit should be able to

5 redeem those certificates. Since these certificates are more

6 than 26 years old and most of the individuals owning the

7 certificates are elderly, it is vital that information relating

8 to the ability to file claims pursuant to this Act be dissemi9 nated as widely as possible.

10 (b) PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN.—In furtherance of the

11 policy set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of the

12 Treasury shall prepare a plan relating to the dissemina13 tion of information on the payment of claims filed pursu14 ant to this Act. The plan shall be designed so that the

15 information will reach those individuals most likely to own

16 Postal Savings System certificates of deposit. The Sec17 retary of the Treasury shall consult with representatives

18 of senior citizen organizations in the design of this plan.

19 The plan shall be put into operation no later than 6

20 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

21 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

22 Section 1322(c) of title 31, United States Code, is

23 amended by striking paragraph (4).

Æ
#### Com. v. Shero 33

12/31/2015

354 EAL (2015)

33

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1061
##### 



EXHIBIT 10(l)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
2007 CASH PROFIT SHARING PLAN
  1.
    
    The Companys Board of Directors establishes a threshold for Earnings Before Taxes
(EBT) to provide a reasonable return to the stockholders. The threshold is based upon an
8% RONA (defined as 8% times avg. adjusted assets). The threshold is estimated as part
of the budget process but determined based upon actual avg. adjusted assets for the
payout. Adjusted assets include accounts receivable, inventory, other current assets, net
fixed assets less CIP, other assets and the NPV of outstanding financed leases.2.
    
    A profit sharing pool is created for profits exceeding this threshold.3.
    
    The pool will be created from 50% percent of EBT above the threshold which will be
shared with the salaried employees and non-represented employees in the form of profit
sharing4.
    
    The profit sharing pool will be capped at a maximum of 20% of EBT, as established
by the Board of Directors.5.
    
    The profit sharing pool is split into four groups, the officer group, key
manager group, salary group, and a non-represented hourly group.6.
    
    The officer group is initially allocated 25% of the pool; the salary group is
initially allocated 60% of the pool; and the non-represented group is allocated 15% of
the pool. The initial officer and salary pools are reduced by equal amounts to effect a
key management group payout (as a percentage of earnings) up to 50% of the officer group
payout (as a percentage of earnings). Half of the salary and non-represented pools are
ratably allocated to individuals based upon their regular wages as a percentage of
aggregate regular wages, representing overall company performance. The other half of the
salary and non-represented pools are allocated first to the respective operating unit
based upon the operating unit EBIT as a percentage of all operating unit EBIT, then to
individuals based upon their regular wages as a percentage of aggregate operating unit
regular wages.7.
    
    To be eligible to participate in the plan, an individual must be actively employed
on the date of the distribution of the profit sharing or have retired at the age of 55 or
older on or after December 31, 2007. Officers, key managers, salaried, and
non-represented employees who become disabled or die during the profit sharing year will
be considered eligible to participate in the plan. Officers, key managers, salaried, and
non-represented employees who are involuntarily terminated without cause on or after
December 31, 2007 will be considered eligible to participate in the plan.
  58
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                                         [graphic]








      June 28, 2001

                                         Arthur Andersen - Jordan
                                         Certified Public Accountants
                                         A Member Firm of Andersen Worldwide

                                         P.O. Box 5552
                                         Amman 11183
                                         Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

                                         Tel 5526111
                                         Fax 5536300






      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of
      our reports (and to all references to our firm) included in Aramex
      International Limited Company's Form 20-F for the year ended
      December 31, 2000.


                                     [graphic]



                                         ARTHUR ANDERSEN
No. 12-8283.

#### Noble *v.*Cooper, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Brown

03/23/2016

451 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 484
#### Greg Waltman, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Berkshire Hathaway Inc. et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 413]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2016, which denied pro se plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, and granted defendants Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s cross motions to dismiss the complaint, and for an order prohibiting plaintiffs from the commencement of any action or proceeding against either defendant without first obtaining the permission of the administrative judge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Waltman commenced this action based upon broad-ranging, difficult to comprehend allegations against the defendants for “elaborate communications fraud to cover up shadow banking and insider trading fraud.”

As a threshold matter, plaintiff abandoned his appeal from the order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, for failure to address the merits of that decision in his brief *(McCabe v 148-57 Equities Co.,*305 AD2d 231, 232 [1st Dept 2003]). If considered on the merits, dismissal was correctly granted as plaintiff failed to state any cognizable cause of action *(Di Nezza v Credit Data of Hudson Val.,*166 AD2d 768, 768-769 [3d Dept 1990], *lv dismissed, denied*77 NY2d 935 [1991]; *Galatowitsch v New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project,*1 AD3d 137, 137 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 507 [2004]). Moreover, plaintiff did not obtain personal jurisdiction over the de*434fendants, as he failed to serve the summons and complaint on a law firm that was representing defendants in this matter (CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; 311 [a] [1]). To the extent plaintiff asserts claims arising out of insider trading and manipulation of the commodities market, he lacks standing to sue, as the claim should have been brought derivatively *(see Broome v ML Media Opportunity Partners,*273 AD2d 63, 64 [1st Dept 2000]), and the corporate plaintiff lacks standing to proceed pro se (CPLR 321; *see Matter of Tenants Comm. of 36 Gramercy Park v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*108 AD3d 413, 413-414 [1st Dept 2013], *lv dismissed*22 NY3d 990 [2013]; *Michael Reilly Design, Inc. v Houraney,*40 AD3d 592, 593-594 [2d Dept 2007]).

Given plaintiffs’ prior history of baseless complaints, the order prohibiting plaintiffs from commencing any lawsuits without prior judicial permission was proper *(see e.g. Melnitzky v Uribe,*33 AD3d 373, 373 [1st Dept 2006]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Dawn McBride, Appellant, v Emmanuel Jean-Louis, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 430]

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J), entered November 18, 2002, which dismissed the petition seeking modification of a custody order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for the reasons stated in decision at Family Court, Erie County, Rosa, J. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
#### Com. v. Tri Thanh Nguyen 22

08/24/2016

227 MAL (2016)

22

. Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 202