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 Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Panama (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Panama (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 28.72  | 12.22  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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. 12-8188.

#### Shifu Lin *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Simmons *34*

12/29/2015

438 WAL (2015)

34

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 469
#### Roger Ribacoff et al., Appellants, v Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Defendant, and Federal Insurance Company, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 1]

*154Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J), entered October 11, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint and granted defendant Federal Insurance Company’s counterclaim to reform the insurance contract with plaintiffs to include a “stock definition” endorsement, excluding jewelry stock from the policy coverage, unanimously modified, on the facts, to award plaintiffs $9,300 as against defendant Federal, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Before reformation of a contract may be granted, a party must establish his right to such relief by clear, positive and convincing evidence *(see Amend v Hurley,*293 NY 587, 595 [1944]). Reformation is permitted where there is mutual mistake, e.g., “where the parties have a real and existing agreement on particular terms and subsequently find themselves signatories to a writing which does not accurately reflect that agreement” *(Harris v Uhlendorf,*24 NY2d 463, 467 [1969]).

Mary Beth Kelly of Gueits, Adams & Co., plaintiffs’ insurance broker, testified that plaintiff never purchased coverage for his jewelry stock through defendant Federal Insurance Company, that Kelly never requested such coverage from Federal on his behalf, and that it was never the intention of the insured or his broker to include such coverage in the policy. Indeed, plaintiffs had canceled their jeweler’s block coverage through another insurer several years prior to the theft underlying the instant claim (evidently because of a hike in the premium), as evidenced by a written communication from Kelly to Ribacoff at the time and the drastically reduced premiums since then. Annual renewals for personal property coverage required a “stock definition” endorsement in order to exclude jewelry stock from coverage, and the inadvertent omission of that endorsement from the policy the year before this theft was corrected with retroactive issuance of such an endorsement during that policy year. The same omission occurred during the instant year.

At the very least, Kelly and Gueits, Adams were aware that there was no jewelry stock coverage under this policy. An insurance broker is an agent of the insured (Insurance Law § 2101 [c]; *Bohlinger v Zanger,*306 NY 228, 231 [1954]). As such, the latter is bound, as principal, by notice to or knowledge acquired by the agent *(Matter of Hayden v S & W Meat & Poultry,*221 *155AD2d 823, 825 [1995]). Plaintiffs are thus bound by their agent’s understanding that insurance coverage for jewelry stock was not intended to be included in the Federal policy, and that omission of the “stock definition” endorsement was again inadvertent.

Federal does concede that plaintiffs are entitled to $9,300 as stipulated settlement for the claim for theft under the personal property coverage. No interest on that sum is warranted, however, because plaintiffs never tendered to Federal a duly executed release and discontinuance with regard to that settlement (CPLR 5003-a [a], [e]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.
2016-1681.

#### State v. Johnson.

Scioto App. No. 16CA3733, 2016-Ohio-7036.

French, O’Neill, and Fischer, JJ., dissent.
#### Rundberg v Rundberg

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1461

denied
# Combat metals: 'The Modern Day Blacksmiths'

/ Published Feb. 23, 2019
SOUTHWEST ASIA, 
*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | -----
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 11.01
|- = 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
# L_2011243EN.01000101.xml

| 21.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 243/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 12 July 2011

on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2011/620/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (the ‘Agreement’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (the ‘Agreement’).

| (2) | The Agreement will enable the reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of the respective Parties and will contribute to the approximation of legislation among the EU neighbouring countries. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Agreement will enable the reciprocal protection of the geographical indications of the respective Parties and will contribute to the approximation of legislation among the EU neighbouring countries.

| (3) | The Agreement should be signed, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement should be signed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2011.

For the Council

The President

J. VINCENT-ROSTOWSKI

---

(1)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.

1

---
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1745

To amend certain provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to

the treatment of Members of Congress for retirement purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

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

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend certain provisions of title 5, United States Code,

relating to the treatment of Members of Congress for

retirement purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 5, UNITED STATES

4 CODE.

5 (a) RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM ANNUITY ALLOW6 ABLE PURSUANT TO COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS.—

7 Section 8340(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is

8 amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ after

10 the semicolon;
2

S 1745 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (B)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘employee or Member’’ and

3 inserting ‘‘employee’’;

4 (B) by striking ‘‘employee or Member,’’

5 and inserting ‘‘employee,’’;

6 (C) by striking ‘‘employee’s or Member’s’’

7 and inserting ‘‘employee’s’’;

8 (D) by striking the period at the end of

9 subparagraph (B)(ii) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

10 (3) by adding at the end the following:

11 ‘‘(C) the final pay of the Member with respect

12 to whom the annuity is paid.’’.

13 (b) RELATING TO THE ACCRUAL RATE APPLICABLE

14 FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTING AN ANNUITY.—

15 (1) CSRS.—Section 8339 of title 5, United

16 States Code, is amended—

17 (A) by striking subsection (c); and

18 (B) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘or

19 Member’’ after ‘‘employee’’.

20 (2) FERS.—Section 8415 of title 5, United

21 States Code, is amended—

22 (A) by striking subsection (b); and

23 (B) in subsections (a) and (g) by inserting

24 ‘‘or Member’’ after ‘‘employee’’ each place it

25 appears.
3

S 1745 IS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect

3 on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply

4 with respect to annuities commencing on or after such

5 date.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6140

LESTER WARREN CARTER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; ANN N. BOSSE; OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA94-3020-CCB)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester Warren Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Hoke

Dachille, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carter

v. Curran, No. CA-94-3020-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 31, 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Kasey Rene’e R., Also Known as Kasey R. and Others, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Katherine Rene’e E., Also Known as Katherine Renee E., Appellant; Lutheran Social Services of New York, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 60]

Orders of fact-finding and disposition (one paper for each child), Family Court, Bronx County (Carol Sherman, J.), entered on or about April 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined, after a hearing, that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject children, terminated the mother’s parental rights, and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the children’s future *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The agency made diligent efforts by, among other things, referring the mother for various parenting programs and mental health services, as well as by scheduling and facilitating visitation with the children *(see id.*§ 384-b [7] [f]; *see also Matter of Marissa Tiffany C-W. [Faith W.],*125 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2015]). Despite these efforts, and de*508spite engaging in numerous services, the mother had not altered or improved her parenting methods *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). Among other things, the mother continued to speak to the children in a threatening and aggressive manner and used inappropriate physical punishment with them, despite being counseled about her behavior *(see Matter of Cameron W. [Lakeisha E.W.],*139 AD3d 494, 494 [1st Dept 2016]).

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the children *(Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). A suspended judgment is not appropriate, given the mother’s lack of insight into her behavior and the special needs of the children, and given the fact that the children’s needs are being met in their foster home, where they have resided since 2010 *(see Matter of Julianna Victoria S. [Benny William W.],*89 AD3d 490, 491 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 805 [2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 10.58


MOLECULAR DEVICES CORPORATION


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR
 CASH COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
 (Effective May 11, 2006)


          The following are the cash compensation arrangements for non-employee directors of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Molecular Devices Corporation (“Molecular Devices”). Directors who are employees of Molecular Devices do not receive compensation for their service on the Board and shall receive compensation only in their capacities as employees. The cash compensation arrangements are as follows:


          1.     Each non-employee director is entitled to receive an annual retainer fee of $15,000 as compensation for his or her service to the Board;


          2.      Each non-employee director is entitled to receive, in addition to his or her Board annual retainer  fee, $1,500 for each Board meeting attended in person by such director and $750 for each meeting attended via teleconference;


          3.     Each member of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and Nominating Committee is entitled to receive, in addition to his or her Board annual retainer fee and Board attendance fees, $1,000 for each committee meeting attended in person and $500 for each meeting attended via teleconference;


          4.     The chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee of the Board are entitled to receive, in addition to their respective Board annual retainer fees and all meeting attendance fees, a supplemental annual retainer fee of $5,000 and $3,000, respectively; and


          5.     Any non-employee director designated “Lead Independent Director” of the Board is entitled to receive, in addition to his or her Board annual retainer fee and all meeting attendance fees, a supplemental annual retainer fee of $5,000.

          Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum annual retainer fees that may be earned by any non-employee director shall not exceed $20,000 in the aggregate.  

          In addition to the foregoing, each non-employee director may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket and travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings.
Exhibit 12.1

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES        EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.        (In Thousands, except for Ratio)

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006EarningsNet income

$
13,929

$
14,595

$
13,836

$
6,929

$
35,131Income tax expense


12,641


12,266


10,507


4,066


22,834Fixed charges


5,335


4,023


3,505


13,882


15,349Earnings available for fixed charges


31,905


30,884


27,848


24,877


73,314Fixed ChargesInterest expense*


1,537


1,160


1,331


10,980


12,023Amortization of deferred loan charges


393


314


426


993


1,445Estimated interest expense in leases


3,405


2,549


1,748


1,909


1,881Total fixed charges

$
5,335

$
4,023

$
3,505

$
13,882

$
15,349Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


6.0


7.7


7.9


1.8


4.8


*Interest
included in fixed charges includes only interest on third party indebtedness and, accordingly, we have excluded accrued interest expense related to
uncertain tax positions.


---



QuickLinks
# EUR-Lex - 32010M5888 - EN

*|*

# 32010M5888

**Commission Decision of 18/08/2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.5888 - DELEK EUROPE / BP FRANCE RETAIL) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

(.PICT.) |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 18.8.2010

SG-Greffe(2010) D/12729

C(2010) 5836 PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.5888 - DELEK EUROPE/ BP FRANCE RETAIL Notification of 20.07.2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 205, 29.07.2010, p.16

1. On 20.07.2010, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Delek Group ("Delek", Israel) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of part of BP France's retail fuels business [2] and joint control of Dépôt Pétrolier de Lyon (France) (jointly "BP France Retail") by way of purchase of shares (the "proposed transaction"). Within the proposed transaction Delek also acquires all the shares that BP France holds in Dépôt Pétrolier de la Corse (France) (21.50%).

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- Delek: active in fuel products, infrastructure, biochemical, energy, automotive, media, finance and wealth management sectors;

- BP France Retail: active on the French market for the retail sale of motor fuels, associated convenience retail business at the service stations and selected storage terminals.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(c) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [3] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the European Commission, (Signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the "Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] BP France Retail operates gas stations comprising retail sale of motor fuels, associated convenience retail business at the service stations and selected storage terminals. Its retails fuels business includes the key assets relating to the retail fuels business.

[3] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 ("Notice on a simplified procedure").
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141437

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141437 COA: 290545 Wayne CC: 08-011660 ROOSEVELT LEWANN RUPERT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 25, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.