alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Price of Gulf Gateway Natural Gas LNG Imports from Qatar (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Price of Gulf Gateway Natural Gas LNG Imports from Qatar (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 9.47   | --     | --    
|2010'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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1439]



[[Page 3318]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM97-3-25-003]


Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

January 15, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 13, 1998, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below 
to be effective February 12, 1998.

Twenty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 5
Twenty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 6
Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 7

    MRT states that the purpose of the instant filing is to remove the 
Miscellaneous Revenue Flowthrough Adjustment credit from MRT's base 
tariff rates under Rate Schedules FTS, SCT, and ITS.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1439 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
2017-0144.

#### State v. Freeman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103660, 2016-Ohio-8143.
#### Com. v. Pouliczec 18

08/01/2016

95-96 EM (2016)

18

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

Denied

Pa.Super,, 135 A.3d 666
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 30099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14903]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 30099]]

                Proclamation 7100 of May 29, 1998

                
Death of Barry M. Goldwater

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                As a mark of respect for the memory of Barry M. 
                Goldwater, former Senator from the State of Arizona, I 
                hereby order, by the authority vested in me as 
                President by the Constitution and the laws of the 
                United States of America, that the flag of the United 
                States shall be flown at half-staff upon all public 
                buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval 
                stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal 
                Government in the District of Columbia and throughout 
                the United States and its Territories and possessions 
                on Wednesday, June 3, 1998. I also direct that the flag 
                shall be flown at half-staff on that day at all United 
                States embassies, legations, consular offices, and 
                other facilities abroad, including all military 
                facilities and naval vessels and stations.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                twenty-ninth day of May, in the year of our Lord 
                nineteen hundred and ninety-eight, and of the 
                Independence of the United States of America the two 
                hundred and twenty-second.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

[FR Doc. 98-14903
Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
#### In the Matter of Arlington Central School District, Respondent, v Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, *473Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 876]

Amended order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 8, 2016, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award in its favor, and denied respondent’s cross petition to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitrator’s award calculations were supported by the plain language of Insurance Law § 5102 (a) and (b) *(see Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.,*49 NY2d 451, 456-457 [1980] [analyzing the former sections of the Insurance Law]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.
No. 12-8682.

#### Shobe *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Oakman

10/26/2015

586 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1145
EXHIBIT 32.2

             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, George E. Young, III, is the Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by
the Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

      B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

Date:  April 5, 2004                      /s/ George E. Young, III
                                          ------------------------
                                          George E. Young, III

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          I, Charles O. Dunn, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as of November19, 2003, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

          I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
2017-0887.

#### State v. Amison.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104728, 2017-Ohio-2856. Cause accepted and held for the decision in 2016-1848, *State v. Paige,*and briefing schedule stayed. Cross-appeal not accepted.

O’Neill, J., not participating
2017-0528.

#### Bey v. State.

Lucas App. No. L-16-1088, 2017-Ohio-404. On motion to stay judgment and dismiss costs. Motion denied.
No. 12-7799.

#### Pineda-Moreno *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Preservation, Packaging, Packing and Marking Team Wins 2018 Department of Defense Packaging Production Achievement Awards

/ Published June 12, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
The Department of Defense will be recognizing DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with a prestigious award at the Packaging, Handling, and Logistics Engineers annual awards banquet in Huntsville, Alabama, May 22.

 “I am pleased to announce the selection of the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Oklahoma City, Preservation, Packaging, Packing and Marking Team as the recipient of the 2018 Department of Defense Packaging Production Achievement,” said Twila C. Gonzales, SES, deputy commander, DLA Distribution. “Congratulations for the outstanding work done by DLA as exemplified by the accomplishments of the DLA Distribution Oklahoma City team.”

This award is presented annually to an individual or team that exemplifies exceptional dedication and excellence in packaging.

"Our premier team continues to provide outstanding support to our customers and the warfighter by exercising the best practices,” said Ned LaViolette, director, DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. “They developed those best practices and implemented them in conjunction with our customers over the last nine years."

In addition to the DOD award, two DDOO personnel are being honored with National Institute of Packaging, Handling, and Logistics Engineers awards.  Mr. Donnie Wingate will be inducted into the Military Packaging Hall of Fame and Mr. Louis Cottone will receive the National Institute for Packaging, Handling, and Logistics Engineers, Packaging Achievement award.
#### In the Matter of David Torres, Appellant, v Nicholas Scopetta, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 904]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 to set aside a voluntary surrender of parental rights, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J), dated May 30, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly denied the petition of the biological father seeking to revoke the judicial surrender of his child because the conditions of the surrender relating to ongoing contact with the child allegedly were violated *(see*Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [d]; *Matter of Sabrina H.,*245 AD2d 1134 [1997]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
POSITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,132
<INVENTORY>                                     35,617
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               278,957
<PP&E>                                       2,843,708
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,356,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,998,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,287
<BONDS>                                        624,014
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     670,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,998,345
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               602,014
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  476,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,146
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,678
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan R. Bernardez, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 656]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 25, 2010 *(People v Bernardez,*73 AD3d 1196 [2010]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered November 5, 2008.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Anna DeSilvio, Appellant, v Lin Zheng, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 699]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated March 9, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on ice on the sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendant in Brooklyn. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, who subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that he had no duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting his property. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

*680“The owner or lessee of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to remove ice and snow that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk unless a statute or ordinance specifically imposes tort liability for failing to do so” *(Bruzzo v County of Nassau,*50 AD3d 720, 721 [2008]; *see Bleich v Metropolitan Mgt., LLC,*132 AD3d 933, 935 [2015]; *Schron v Jean’s Fine Wine & Spirits, Inc.,*114 AD3d 659, 660 [2014]). In 2003, the New York City Council enacted section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to shift tort liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalk conditions from the City to abutting property owners *(see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc.,*10 NY3d 517, 519-520 [2008]). However, this liability-shifting provision does not apply to “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” (Administrative Code § 7-210 [b]).

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” *(Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp.,*76 AD3d 210, 214 [2010]). Here, in view of the plaintiffs pleadings, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that as an owner of a two-family residential property, which he occupied and which was used exclusively for residential purposes, he had no statutory duty to maintain the sidewalk where the accident occurred *(see*Administrative Code § 7-210 [b]; *Villamar v Pacheco,*135 AD3d 853, 853-854 [2016]; *Kronenberg v Narayan,*135 AD3d 711, 712 [2016]; *Starkou v City of New York,*128 AD3d 802 [2015]; *Lai-Hor Ng Yiu v Crevatas,*103 AD3d 691 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs contention that the defendant created the condition by negligently engaging in snow and ice removal work is being asserted for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this Court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from JWH Global
Trust for the fiscal year of 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001027099
<NAME> JWH GLOBAL TRUST
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      99,343,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  789,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           100,133,157
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,133,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,660,611
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  95,472,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,133,157
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,869,288
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,468,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,400,521
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,400,521
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,400,521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.70
        

</TABLE>
#### Maria Priola, Appellant, v Herrill Bowling Corp., Doing Business as Herrill Lanes, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 635]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered March 17, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*1164Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell while bowling in a bowling alley owned by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.

In a premises liability case such as this, involving a slip and fall allegedly caused by a dangerous condition, a plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation *(see Singh v City of New York,*136 AD3d 641, 642 [2016]; *Rivera v J. Nazzaro Partnership, L.P.,*122 AD3d 826, 827 [2014]). Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall *(see Califano v Maple Lanes,*91 AD3d 896, 897-898 [2012]; *McFadden v 726 Liberty Corp.,*89 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.
#### Chavis, Matter of, v Fischer

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1489

denied