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:                                               
|                                                            
|Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Production (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                                                                                                                            |           |           | 121,071   | 118,317   | 166,281   | 150,089   | 159,655   | 163,000   | 166,817   | 191,520  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 177,309   | 152,105   | 138,071   | 131,617   | 119,993   | 110,418   | 134,397   | 79,266    | 129,585   | 173,822  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 149,414   | 130,162   | 157,234   | 159,180   | 196,583   | 167,801   | 175,156   | 181,418   | 197,287   | 272,574  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 568,324   | 1,301,661 | 2,244,693 | 3,238,106 | 4,217,704 | 4,759,441 | 5,141,435 | 5,389,785 | 6,177,088 | 6,801,265
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 7,071,040 | 7,547,154 | 7,413,118 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 3/29/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 4/30/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           3,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                       793
<INVENTORY>                                     28,852
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,745
<PP&E>                                          11,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,767
<BONDS>                                         15,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,280
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,489
<SALES>                                         33,018
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,018
<CGS>                                           24,406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    577
<INCOME-TAX>                                       219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                358
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-936.

#### Namer *v.*Federal Trade Commission.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
James E. Steward 5212 Springdale Ln. McHenry, IL 60050 815-578-8070 jsteward529@comcast.net

January 12, 2016



### Petitionfor Section 333 Exemption

I herebyformally request FAA authorization forJames E. Steward (hereafter "PETITIONER") to operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes otherthan for recreation or hobby.**-~ ~---,--~PETtnONERrequests** **to~**be' exempted from 14CFR9§ 61.23(a} 

### Efri<f(cJ; o-r.ror(e){4)

## and (--=s)

.......

, --**_,~_,_ -,~--**  61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessaryto allow PETITIONER to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging.

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS within the United States.

PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including the DJI Inspire Pro/RAW, orother similar commercially-available and**widely-av~ilable** UAS models.

PETITIONER will conduct its use of UAS in a mannerwhich will minimize risk to the UAS, other persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a preflight inspection before each flight to examine airworthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially altered from commercial specifications exceptfor battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS will not be flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line of sightto operator(s) pursuantto Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operatorwill perform a preflight visual inspection ofthe NAS to determine nearbydangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, power lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote control, and proper performance at 

### a very low altitude before reaching the UAS, and 

### (9) non-participating spectators will be 

### askedto stay a safe distance awayfrom the flight path ofthe UAS and its landing location. PETITIONER has over30years experience operating a UAS and RG aircraft.

This petition will benefitthe public interest. PETITIONER will provide a safe means ofobtaining imagerywhich is not otherwise possible to be captured without the use of a UAS, which will assist companies to which the images may be sold, will enhance the public understanding of nature photographed bythe UAS, and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety information to those with whom he comes in contact.

### Ple~,}Jran.t the reques.ted exem.ption under Section 333.

# q~s~~ James E. Steward
For+ f3er~t-t>ld M·~w N~f- errut%~ ~ · ~11/~l( 0 -- /Ja~M-e- C'o(\(_~ PYt.on.e £"~! ~em &lhi~ 5f~Jflt)~ "1ZJ.4fi:l. '1821 ksqfht~e sl/lW.S<M~~· 

____ Fed ~ _ Mltf+ (t3+ld\ _ 76t-L/2/· o3~( ~~ em~evta--'-'01) c~ 

~ ~~ \-\~V\i- AS\ A- OE.,MO 303- 2Lf2~4538 j~~ve~. hv~@ b~-t. <SOV 

M~J-"' MAJhlc.r ~~P. E"u:~1 _ ~3-IAo· A#J.t~ M,.U..~Ic,.ea~rres a..-

~1..1 f-1,"t.E1~ ~et' bJt;f.b'f _ ~~·,1t-·6'1oo co-;.1.11!~~ 

~~?K JJ191/ wED 3C'JyqJ-s?t!:J~ ..J·eepqx.I~~ ,_,_J 

bl4L~M' ~E? R~ .. tc£s_ 5dJ-30t-l,1o ."t -(~r-rr~ .. ____ ~_D ~5-(GS N8"Nf.,e..ld ~o:s. 38 3Al'i-Z 'br 5~c- .s@NM~ek\ -<..~""'-

___ Ro {\) f ),..,c,-f. /C..odi(]Jk.. :?>OJ.-.!>-q~-fiO'l.q f2.fi~<lli£,J:a!. o&.c<Jno-

____ - /J .-~~ T"# J.~sAI/1 ~'1//fb~l.. Jt>3 • Cfd t.j ... ~.s-2,.5"' f?,•/4. G )e.fc,r. i'crl'l 

~ ~)...D ~AJ s~~ ~~s(.r~.S=t€,~ brfiY.2x>J.Soo...~-~Y'l \ ./1 w.ll~ _ _._ __ ..u.-~.J){;t(..L ;vr f 6aur Wt c..t., J kt'U-.5:> 3~3 ?ot.~:- f!os(, jod.a.U. ~c~-oa:-><? ·Ocrtc 

/1/ MEtf4'~ ~IV~w~~ M*'~~e~~.Nfe,v;r.v~@. Htkl!f. t?etFJ!!£- ~~ l..ler4-)(k,..; I J'o 7-:<.1' ,2 -~J>o3 ~w~tsr~t~4 .;AJ~ r 

____ --;;;;'! !..v<-f!-VV ~f./vs 4,;;.,"~5 yo ;)lf/.>5'/2- -1/u~.._.,;~-<'f~

-~~v.t_k. _.J;.,je.- AfviP..Ai?' 3o ;- $11-3/JZ- ~J~Jeo~te_a.f.tJ/o.,,x~~ 

~~ ~vaNe -AQl).otJ,x: 720-3Y7-111a, j~o~ea1JM00·Vc..c.-oAA 

-------+1ii/er~A~r;// _ Aq_u..\DY1\.X_ ?20 - 34':1- 8tdo3 ~clll@at(fuarllt.LOm 

Jo•-tlt M ~M t:c~~k 'i.TU 1'7 f~ "> 'J~ f' Z ~-""-»-<M-~.n~lb.OA.:~~ f, 

... -4o5- ~- 3'Z J.S ---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isam Henry, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 886]

Judgment, Supreme

Court, Bronx County (William Mogulescu, J.), rendered March 14, 2014, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

*469Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-8358.

#### Lawlor *v.*Hartley, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Herbert Rose et al., Respondents, v 115 Tenants Corp., Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 875]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered February 25, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and declared that plaintiffs, as owners of a penthouse in a building owned and managed by defendant, are entitled to exclusive use and enjoyment of a portion of the rooftop terrace in accordance with the proprietary lease terms, that defendant is enjoined from interfering with plaintiffs’ said exclusive rights to use of the rooftop terrace, and that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the same causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found that the plain language of relevant provisions in the parties’ proprietary lease and the offering plan, which included amendments thereto and in particular paragraph 7 of the lease, conveyed to plaintiffs, in language nearly identical to that found in *Grade Terrace Apt. Corp. v Goldstone*(103 AD2d 699 [1st Dept 1984], *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 925 [1984]), an exclusive right to use and enjoy the rooftop terrace to the extent any portion thereof was appurtenant to their penthouse. Defendant’s argument that plaintiffs were only granted, at most, an exclusive right to use just 400 square feet of the rooftop terrace appurtenant to their penthouse, citing the 1979 first amendment to the offering plan, is misplaced, as such limitation pertained only to a potential penthouse addition that could be constructed on the open terrace area.

As plaintiffs were the prevailing parties in this action, and inasmuch as the lease contained an attorneys’ fee provision, the motion court appropriately granted plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees (Real Property Law § 234; *Estate of Del Terzo v 33 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp.,*136 AD3d 486, 490 [1st Dept 2016], *affd*28 NY3d 1114 [2016]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.
**Exhibit 12.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Lonnie Kirsh, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of RoyalStandard Minerals Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Companyand 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         

b.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

         

c.Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

         

d.Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Company’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 whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’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 Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
|                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                  
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Argentina (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                  
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Argentina (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr   | May   | Jun   | Jul   | Aug   | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 8.98  |       | 19.07 | 18.97 | 18.69 |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 14.55 | 18.24 | 19.73 |       |       |     |     |     |    
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 8.03  | 7.93  |       |       |       |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Barr, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 865]

— Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered July 9, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed (see *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|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 Exports by Vessels to South Korea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessels to South Korea (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5.75   | 4.18   | 4.56   | 4.76  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.66   | 7.46   | 12.45  | 7.21   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Donough Lawlor, Respondent, v Kathleen McAuliffe, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 363]—

*428Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (La Tia W. Martin, J.), entered April 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s application for a downward modification of child support and for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

During hearings on financial issues in the course of these prolonged post-divorce child custody and visitation proceedings, the court properly issued an interim child support order, in March 2015, increasing defendant’s child support obligation based on her testimony and 2014 W2 income statement showing a substantial increase in income since the issuance of the preceding interim support order providing for nominal support based on defendant’s representation that she was unemployed *(see*Domestic Relations Law §§ 240; 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]; Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]; *Matter of James B. v Regina D.S.,*132 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2015]). In support of the instant motion for a downward modification of the March 2015 order, defendant failed to submit a net worth statement, as required by the matrimonial rules (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k] [2]; *see also Belmore-Gaillard v Gaillard,*51 AD3d 603 [1st Dept 2008]). Moreover, defendant failed to provide the court with any other evidence demonstrating that the amount of support ordered was inappropriate in light of her earning ability, even considering that she was temporarily disabled from working, or that a reduction to the prior nominal level of child support was warranted or in the child’s best interests.

The court properly determined that plaintiff’s testimony and evidence submitted in connection with his application for counsel fees did not constitute misrepresentations subject to sanctions (22 NYCRR 130-1.1).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.