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 Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to India (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to India (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May  | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |      |     |     |     | W   |     |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |      |     |     | W   |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |      |     |     |     |     |     |     | W  
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     | 4.34 |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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 ex rel. Howard Greenberg, Esq., on Behalf of Miguel Paredes, Appellant, v Joseph Ponte, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 625]

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2016, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The habeas court properly determined that the bail court (Ethan Greenberg, J.) did not abuse its discretion in denying bail in the underlying case involving very serious allegations of interstate firearms trafficking *(see People ex rel. Lazer v Warden, N.Y. County Men's House of Detention,*79 NY2d 839 [1992]). Considering the statutory factors set forth in CPL *450510.30 (2) (a), and given the strength of the evidence against petitioner and the potential lengthy sentence if convicted, we conclude that the bail court did not abuse its discretion in denying bail (see *e.g. People ex rel. Siegel v Sielaff,*182 AD2d 389, 390 [1st Dept 1992]). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s remaining arguments.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Webber, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of
Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)     the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)    the information contained in the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:May 10, 2010 | By: /s/ Jeff T. Wilson   Jeff T. Wilson
 Chief Financial Officer
|----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### Com. v. Grant18

02/08/2016

472 MAL (2015)

18

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1058
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains financial information extracted from the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                         1,407,106
<SECURITIES>                                   0           
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,246,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (209,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    6,157,889 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,026,966  
<PP&E>                                         1,175,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (539,578)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,414,904  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,531,049   
<BONDS>                                        0           
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,082        
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,659,647   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,414,904  
<SALES>                                        21,968,955  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,968,955  
<CGS>                                          13,646,496  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,343,249  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               23,990       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,139,577   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,537,861)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   266,951
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,804,812)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.99)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.99)
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-8704.

#### Browne *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-4.58



 Exhibit 4.58 
 (English Translation) 
 Termination Agreement 

This Agreement is entered into by and among the following parties on September 6, 2011 in Beijing: 

Robin Yanhong Li: a PRC citizen. 

Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.: a foreign-owned limited liability company duly incorporated and validly existing under the
laws of the People’s Republic of China (“Baidu Online”). 
 WHEREAS, (1) Robin Yanhong Li signed the proxy agreement (the
“Original Agreement”) as a shareholder of Baidu HR Consulting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Baidu HR”) with Baidu Online on December 28, 2010 in Beijing; (2) Robin Yanhong has transferred all the shares he held in Baidu HR to
Baidu Online (the “Transferee”); (3) The Transferee has entered into a separate proxy agreement on the same date as this agreement in the capacity of a current shareholder of Baidu HR. 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
 The Original Agreement shall be automatically terminated upon the date of this termination agreement. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 

  
 1 








 [No Text on this Page] 
 Robin Yanhong Li 
 /s/ Robin Yanhong Li 

Party A: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 
 Authorized representative: Zhan Wang 
 Signature: /s/ Zhan Wang 

Seal: (the seal of Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.) 

  
 2
EXHIBIT 23.1

             [Letterhead of Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.]


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-44837 and No. 333-100877) on Form S-8 of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated October 28, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Falmouth Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2003 and 2002, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
September 30, 2003, which report is incorporated by reference in the
September 30, 2003 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc.

                                       /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.
                                      SHATSWELL, McLeod & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
December 22, 2003


<PAGE>
#### Omadil Cabrera, Appellant, v Yakov Abaev, Defendant, and Dennis Pantoja et al., Respondents.

[55 NYS3d 207]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ post-note of issue motion to compel plaintiff to appear for independent medical examinations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“Trial courts are authorized, as a matter of discretion, to permit post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note of issue, so long as neither party will be prejudiced” *(Cuprill v Citywide Towing & Auto Repair Servs.,*149 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2017]). We perceive no prejudice here, as the matter remains on the trial calendar *(see Suarez v Shapiro Family*
      *589
      *Realty Assoc., LLC,*149 AD3d 526 [1st Dept 2017]; *see e.g. Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*168 AD2d 376, 376-377 [1st Dept 1990]). Moreover, the court providently exercised its discretion in directing plaintiff to appear for the medical examinations, given defendants’ short delay in designating the physicians *(see Henderson-Jones v City of New York,*104 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
*May 15, 2017*

2017-Ohio-2791.]

2017-0554.

#### State ex rel. O’Malley v. O’Donnell.

In Prohibition and Mandamus. On relator’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luigi Jaquez, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 188]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O., at suppression hearing; Eduardo Padro, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered October 29, 2014, as amended December 2, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied the motion to suppress drugs *544recovered from defendant’s person. While the record demonstrates that they were discovered as the result of a statement that was suppressed, they were nevertheless admissible pursuant to the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Because defendant would have been subjected to several thorough searches following his arrest, there was a “very high degree of probability” that “normal police procedures” would inevitably have led to the discovery of the drugs, even without the statement *(People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 86 [1997]; *see also People v Silver,*178 AD2d 499, 500 [1991]). In light of this determination, as in *People v Garcia*(132 AD3d 405, 406 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 1039 [2015]), “we find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether, given United States Supreme Court authority to the contrary *(see United States v Patane,*542 US 630 [2004]), physical evidence may be suppressed as fruit of a *Miranda*violation.”

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s basis for terminating his participation in a diversion program and imposing a two-year sentence are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits. The record, viewed as a whole, establishes that defendant was aware that under the terms of his plea agreement he was obligated to inform the court of any arrests. Accordingly, defendant violated the agreement when he failed to report a significant drug arrest, notwithstanding that this arrest did not lead to a conviction. Moreover, the court was entitled to consider that it already had given defendant a second chance despite an earlier arrest while he was in the program *(see e.g. People v Darcy,*34 AD3d 230 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 879 [2007]). Defendant’s failure to disclose the arrest, combined with his previous failure to comply with the plea conditions, provided ample grounds upon which to terminate defendant’s participation in the program and impose a prison sentence, regardless of the validity of other comments made by the court in making its determination.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/02

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nevzet Ahmemulic, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 811]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), rendered May 15, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of forcible touching, and sentencing him to a term of six years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony and motives to falsify.

Defendant’s challenge to the jury charge on the ground of *407duplicitousness is unpreserved *(see People v Becoats,*17 NY3d 643, 650-651 [2011], *cert denied*566 US 964 [2012]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-7049.

#### Owens *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                    
|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 South Korea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                    
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports 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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 29.95  | 25.84  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| \s\ James H. Moore      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| James H. Moore          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 15, 2010  |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MinesManagement, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   MOBILE AMERICA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  UNAUDITED COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                QUARTERS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996 AND

                NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996

            
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Quarters Ended September 30           Nine Months Ended September 30         
                                                     1997                 1996               1997                1996
                                                  ----------          ----------          ----------          ----------
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>       
Net Income                                        $1,669,470          $2,003,741          $5,321,851          $5,474,478
                                                  ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

Weighted average
Common shares outstanding                          7,147,334           7,184,058           7,155,845           7,184,058

Effect of weighting treasury stock acquired                0                   0                   0                   0
                                                  ----------          ----------          ----------          ----------


Common and common equivalent shares
  used in computing earnings per share             7,147,334           7,184,058           7,155,845           7,184,058
                                                  ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========




Earnings per share                                $     0.23          $     0.28          $     0.74          $     0.76
                                                  ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

Prior share and per share amounts adjusted for 15% stock dividend 
</TABLE>
#### Norma Fowler, Respondent, v Salvatore D. Buffa, M.D., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[52 NYS3d 632]

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 3, 2016, which denied the motions of defendants Salvatore D. Buffa, M.D., Victoria A. Brand, CRNA, and Alliance Anesthesiology Associates, P.L.L.C. (Alliance), and defendant Surgicare Ambulatory Center, Inc. (Surgicare) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice action, defendants Buffa, Brand, and Alliance failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiff’s claims that, inter alia, Dr. Buffa failed to devise an anesthesiology plan sufficient to sedate and anesthetize plaintiff during her cataract surgery, and that Brand failed to notice and address that plaintiff was experiencing increasing levels of pain during the procedure *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

*607The court also correctly denied summary judgment to Surgicare. It is unclear from the record, in which Surgicare is listed in plaintiffs informed consent agreement as administering and directing anesthesia, whether Dr. Buffa was acting as an employee of, or on behalf of, Surgicare when he created the anesthesia plan for plaintiff *(see Brown v Speaker,*33 AD3d 446, 447 [1st Dept 2006]; *Harrington v Neurological Inst. of Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr.,*254 AD2d 129, 130 [1st Dept 1998]).

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.