alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000065195
<NAME>                        Mestek, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                        2,633
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                60,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                  3,813
<INVENTORY>                                  56,349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            121,605
<PP&E>                                      120,871                  
<DEPRECIATION>                               53,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              227,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        87,548
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        479
<OTHER-SE>                                  136,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                227,712
<SALES>                                      77,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             82,026
<CGS>                                        55,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                58,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               5,691
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2,172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .40
        


</TABLE>
|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                         
|                                                                                                      
|No chart available.                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                                   
|                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                      
|Price of Corpus Christi, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Finland (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7962.

#### Springs *v.*Ally Financial Inc., fka GMAC Inc., et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Port Huron, MI Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Port Huron, MI Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb   | Mar   | Apr  | May   | Jun  | Jul  | Aug  | Sep | Oct  | Nov   | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ---- | ----- | ---- | ---- | ---- | --- | ---- | ----- | -----
|2013                                                                                                                              |       |       |       |      |       |      |      |      |     |      |       | 9.48 
|2014                                                                                                                              |       | 10.66 | 10.66 | 9.74 | 10.09 | 9.74 | 9.85 | 9.85 |     | 9.85 | 10.86 | 10.99
|                                                                                                                                 
|2015                                                                                                                              | 10.25 | 10.00 | 9.63  | 9.63 |       | 8.77 |      |      |     |      |       |      
|- = 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
Order filed July 25, 2017

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00006

- CV

____________ JASON MICHAEL MERRIL L , Appellant

V.
SPRINT WASTE SERVICE S LP AND JOSE LUIS G ONZALEZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 60963



### ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 97, 176, 185, and Defendant's Exhibit s 2, 3, 4, 136, 138, videos.The clerk of the 61st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this

court the original of Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 97, 176, 185, and Defendant's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 136, 138, videos, on or before August 03, 2017

. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 9 7, 176, 185, and Defendant's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 136, 138, videos, to the clerk of the 61st District
Court.

PER CURIAM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TEKOA T. GLOVER, a/k/a Toby , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:18

- cr - 00588

- TMC

- 1 )

Submitted : April 26 , 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tekoa T. Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Sloan Price Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina.

Unpubli shed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tekoa T. Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s order striking his pro se filings on the ground that Glover is represented by counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only ov er final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541,
545

- 46 (1949). The order Glover seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          2
<CIK>                     0001025707
<NAME>                    LITIGATION ECONOMICS,INC.
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                         10,434
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLE>                        8
[OTHER]                           125
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               10,442
<PP&E>                         24,680
<DEPRECIATION>                 (3,747)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 35,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,898
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                         1600
<OTHER-SE>                     32,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   35,247
<SALES>                        19,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               19,534
<CGS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSE>                83,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (68,275)
<NET-INCOME>                  (68,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis

NORTHERN OPERATIONS CENTER, INC. AND VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2141-98-4 PER CURIAM JANUARY 19, 1999 MIRTA CASTANEDA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (William T. Kennard; Mell, Brownell & Baker, on brief), for appellants. Appellants submitting on brief. (Metin A. Cay; Swiger & Cay, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.

Northern Operations Center, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission awarding Mirta Castaneda temporary total disability benefits beginning December 24, 1996 and continuing. Employer contends that the commission erred in finding that Castaneda's evidence sustained her burden of proving continuing disability after June 9, 1997. Finding no error, we

affirm. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.

Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol Steel

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Constr. Co. , 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). In ruling that Castaneda sustained her burden of proving continuing disability after June 9, 1997, the commission found as

follows: Dr. [Saul J.] Kaplan's records anticipated follow-up examinations every 4-6 weeks, but there is no suggestion in those records that he anticipated a change in condition and disability on such visits. Rather, Dr. Kaplan clearly reported on December 24, 1996 that the claimant could not work until the [Reflex Sympathic Dystrophy ("RSD")] problem had resolved. His subsequent records demonstrate that condition had not resolved. Rather, all reports after that date, including the one on April 28, 1997, show that Castaneda experienced no change in condition over that time. Moreover, this is confirmed by the uncontradicted Attending Physician's Report issued two days before the evidentiary hearing, which cannot be summarily rejected or ignored.

The evidence proved that Dr. Kaplan, Castaneda's treating orthopedic surgeon, consistently and unequivocally opined that Castaneda could not return to work until her RSD resolved, which it had not. In his October 7, 1997 Attending Physician's Report, Dr. Kaplan indicated that Castaneda had been disabled since October 7, 1996, and he placed question marks in the blocks on the form indicating the "Date able to return to light work" and "Date able to return to regular work." Dr. Kaplan's records and uncontradicted opinions provide credible evidence to support the commission's findings. Thus, those findings are binding and conclusive upon us on appeal. See id. For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.- 3 - Affirmed

.
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|No chart available.                                                           
|No chart available.                                                           
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Arizona Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Coalbed Wells  (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 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
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T BOBB I E S COTT , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J O E R E Y E S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 56553 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 7 2 1 5 - GH KPL A ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge H . K i ng, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B obbi e S c ottappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng h e rc iv il r ig h ts a c tio n a lle g in g th a t s h e w a s r e ta lia te da g a in s t f o rte s tif y in g in s ta te c ourtpr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de 

# FI LED APR26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56553 2 n o v o ad i s mi s s a l f

o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m. Se rr a v . L a p p in , 600 F . 3d 1191, 1195 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . W e a f

f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d S c ott ’ s c ons pi r a c yc l a i m unde r42 U .S .C .§ 1 9 8 5 b e c au s e s h e f a ile dto a lle g e f

a c ts s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w th a t d e f

e n d a n ts c o n s p ir e da g a in s t h e rdu e to h e rr a c e o rc la s s . Se e B r e t zv . Ke lm an , 773 F . 2d 1026, 1028 ( 9th C i r . 1985) ( e n ba nc ) ( r e qui r i ng a l l e ga t i on of r a c e - orc l a s s - ba s e d a ni m us fo r c o n sp irac y c laim u n d erre lev an t clau se s o f § 1 9 8 5 ). C o n trary to S co tt ’s c ont e nt i on, the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yde t e rm i ne d tha tthe f i r s tc l aus e of

§ 1985( 2) i s notappl i c abl e t o S c ott ’ s c l a i m be c aus e the c l a i m a r i s e s f r om s t a t e c ourt , not f e d e r a l c o u rt, p r o c e e d in g s . Se e R u tle d g e v . A r iz . B d. o

f R eg e n ts , 859 F . 2d 732, 735 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( f

ir s t c lau s e o f

§ 1 9 8 5 ( 2 ) r e q u ir e s a lle g a tio n s o f ac o n s p ir a c yto d e te rth e p la in tif

f f r o m te s tif

y in g in f e d e r a l c o u rt p r o c e e d in g s ) . W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the op eni ng bri ef

, i ncl ud i ng tho se re gardi ng S cott ’ s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 p roce du ra l du e p r o c e s s c la im . See Sm i th v. M a rsh , 1 9 4 F .3 d1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . AF F I RME D.
#### Hapworth Medical Services, P. C., Respondent, v Francesca Kress, Appellant.

[630 NYS2d 322]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered January 3, 1994, which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, to the extent of directing defendant’s attorney to pay $2,500 to plaintiffs attorney and $2,500 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection pursuant to State Finance Law § 97-t, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion, to delete the provision imposing sanctions and costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendant’s second motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was not based on evidence that was unavailable to defendant at the time she made her first motion *(Levitz v Robbins Music Corp.,*17 AD2d 801; *see also, Marine Midland Bank v Fisher,*85 AD2d 905, 906). In any event, on the merits, the enforceability of covenants restricting health care professionals from competing with a former employer or associate have been recognized *(Gelder Med. Group v Webber,*41 NY2d 680, 683). Questions of fact are present, including those concerning the validity of the covenant in light of the ethical constraints on the plaintiffs principal and the defendant.

We disagree, however, with the trial court’s imposition of sanctions (22 NYCRR 130-1.1), because the defendant’s actions in bringing a motion for summary judgment against the complaint, after having brought a prior motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim, did not rise to the level of frivolous conduct such that sanctions were warranted *(Marine Midland Bank v Vivlamore,*185 AD2d 506, 508).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.
2018-0050.

#### State ex rel. Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Convention and Visitor’s Bur.

In Mandamus.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Chernek, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 657]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered January 9, 2003, convicting him of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlawful operation of a vehicle in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*743Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.