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:                                                    
|                                                                 
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Israel (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Israel (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 3,270  | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 15,834 | 8,906  | 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
# L_2010296EN.01000501.xml

| 13.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 296/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 296/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1023/2010

of 12 November 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Jambon de l’Ardèche (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Jambon de l’Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Jambon de l’Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 November 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 76, 25.3.2010, p. 36.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

FRANCE

Jambon de l’Ardèche (PGI)

---
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-201-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### In the Matter of Michael J. Hartofilis, as Preliminary Executor of Niki Sideris, Deceased. Agatha Louis et al., Respondent; George Kakridas et al., Appellants.

[53 NYS3d 541]

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered May 13, 2016, granting probate to the Last Will and Testament of decedent Niki Sideris, dated October 19, 2000, and decree, same court and Surrogate, entered October 20, 2016, inter alia, directing appellants George Kakridas, James Kakridas, Konstantinos Kakridas, and Panagiota Kakridas, to transfer ownership and surrender possession of a certain condominium in Athens, Greece and its contents, and certain real property located in Laconia, Greece, to petitioners, executors of the estate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination whether to dismiss objections and admit a will to probate is within the discretion of the Surrogate’s Court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of such discretion *(McInerney v McInerney,*79 AD3d 549 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 711 [2011]).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the will to probate, despite the numerous minor errors in the document. Due execution was established by the will’s attestation clause, the self-proving affidavit of the attesting witnesses, and the testimony of those witnesses, and of the attorney drafter and notary *(see Matter of West,*147 AD3d 592 [1st Dept 2017]). As the court noted, the errors were not substantive, did not affect the dispositive portions of the will, and were adequately explained by the attorney drafter, who had no motive to lie *(see Matter of Snide,*52 NY2d 193, 196 [1981]).

*500The court properly directed the turnover of decedent’s property in Greece based on objectants’ admission that the property belonged to decedent, her primary domicile was New York, and objectants’ failure to challenge the court’s jurisdiction *(see*SCPA 2103 [1] [a]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

            SUBSIDIARIES OF SOUTHWEST BANCORPORATION OF TEXAS, INC.


1.  Southwest Holding Delaware, Inc.                               Delaware
2.  Southwest Bank of Texas National Association*               United States
3.  First National Bank of Bay City (57.834% ownership)*        United States
4.  Mitchell Mortgage Company L.L.C.**                              Texas
5.  SWBT Insurance Agency, Inc.**                                   Texas
6.  SWBT Securities, Inc.**                                         Texas
7.  Southwest/Catalyst Capital, Ltd. (99% ownership)**              Texas
8.  Fairview, Inc.**                                                Texas


 *  Subsidiary of Southwest Holding Delaware, Inc.
**  Subsidiary of Southwest Bank of Texas National Association
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14788]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determination

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibit, ``Nicholas and Alexandra: The Last Imperial 
Family of Tsarist Russia,'' (see list \1\), imported from abroad for 
the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are 
of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with a foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the listed exhibit objects at the First USA Riverfront 
Arts Center in Wilmington, Delaware, beginning on or about August 1, 
1998, ending on or about December 31, 1998, and at two additional 
venues thereafter, is in the national interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Lorie 
Nierenberg, Assistant General Counsel, at 202/619-6084. The address 
is U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, 
Washington, DC 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 27, 1998.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-14788 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230--01-M
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MentorCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10‐Q for the period ending June30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Adel Michael, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/S/ADEL MICHAELAdel MichaelChief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2003
**Exhibit 99(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theaccompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery R. Gardner, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/Jeffery  R. Gardner                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                  |
| Jeffery R.  Gardner                                   |
| Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| May 14, 2003                                          |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ALLTELCorporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Glenn M. Dobbs



Glenn M. Dobbs

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 8, 2006







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



































1
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|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 Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to United Arab Emirates (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-8434.

#### Centeno Nunez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7795.

#### Melendez *v.*Wilson et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashawn T. Jacque, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 870]

*1363Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Affront!, J.), entered March 19, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and attempted burglary in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by eliciting bolstering testimony from a police officer. Defendant made only two generalized objections to the allegedly improper questioning, one of which was sustained. The remaining objection was not sufficiently specific to preserve defendant’s present contention for our review *(see People v West,*56 NY2d 662, 663 [1982]; *see also People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818, 819 [1982]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. “Where the police officer merely testifies that the defendant was a ‘suspect’, ‘[s]uch testimony cannot be equated with police testimony improperly implying that a witness who was not brought to testify did in fact implicate the defendant’ ” *(People v Williams,*193 AD2d 826, 827 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 905 [1993]; *see People v Brown, 262*AD2d 570, 575 [1999], *affd*95 NY2d 776 [2000]; *People v Griffin,*246 AD2d 668, 669 [1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 973 [1998]; *People v Polidore,*181 AD2d 835, 837 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 836 [1992]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s questioning did not elicit bolstering testimony from the police officer, and thus defendant has failed to show “how the prosecutor’s use of allegedly . . . bolstering questions constituted prosecutorial misconduct or substantially prejudiced him” *(People v Parker,*305 AD2d 858, 859 [2003]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
[Cite as Boyer v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-1761.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

CAMERON BOYER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-09531-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On July 29, 2010, plaintiff, Cameron Boyer, filed a complaint against 

defendant, Department of Transportation. However, plaintiff did not provide any details 

with respect to the date, time, location, or nature of any alleged road hazard which 

caused plaintiff’s damage. The only documentation attached to plaintiff’s complaint was 

an estimate for auto repairs in the amount of $1,175.24 dated July 22, 2010 from Midas. 

The plaintiff submitted the filing fee. 

{¶ 2} On August 6, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. In support of the 

motion to dismiss, defendant stated in pertinent part: 

{¶ 3} “Plaintiff Boyer filed a claim at the Court of Claims of Ohio on July 29, 

2010, but he did not give a date, description of his complaint or the location. Without 

the factors, there is no way to investigate this claim. 

{¶ 4} “For these reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the present case 

be dismissed.” 

{¶ 5} Plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 
Case No. 2010-09531-AD - 2 - ENTRY

{¶ 6} Upon review, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED based on the 

lack of evidence supplied by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The court shall absorb the court costs of this case in excess of the filing fee. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Cameron Boyer Catherine Cola Perkins 

1359 Woodberry Chief Legal Counsel 

Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Department of Transportation 

 1980 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

DRB/laa 

Filed 1/26/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 4/8/11
# Hill AFB Energy Conservation

/ Published April 30, 2019

Budgeting energy-efficient upgrades to save millions of dollars can require innovative thinking.  

In 2018, Defense Logistics Agency Energy helped Hill Air Force Base, Utah, utilize over $4 million through energy incentives and bill credits for a $91.1 million Energy Savings Performance Contract. 

Keith Carvalho, the DLA Energy contract specialist and the contracting officer post award, worked with the Hill AFB Energy Office to overcome the unique challenges associated with the ESPC, which is projected to save more than $3 million per year over the span of the 20-year contract.

“Keith was proactive with the schedule pushing Hill AFB and the contractor to adhere to set timelines of the contract,” said Hill AFB Energy Manager Nick King. “Typically utility incentives are not used towards the cost of an ESPC contract, but he helped us figure out a way to utilize utility savings rebates and incentives from Rocky Mountain Power as capital for the project.”

As Hill’s energy manager, King worked as the base lead, kept leadership informed, acted as the contracting officer representative and was the final approval authority for Hill AFB.

“After the degree of success seen not only in attaining these funds but also working with the contractor and DLA Energy to apply them to the ESPC, we intend to utilize utility rebates as a tool to cost share efforts with local utilities in the future,” King said.

The energy conservation measures executed through this contract span 262 buildings and 9.1 million square feet and include process improvements, lighting upgrades, steam distribution insulation, compressed air system upgrades, solar array installation and industrial ventilation air reduction. The measures are expected to reduce Hill AFB’s overall energy consumption by 9% and energy costs by 13% while increasing its distributed/renewable energy portfolio by 30%.

While Carvalho and King played a significant role, several other members of the interagency team were integral in ensuring the success of the ESPC.

Hill AFB Energy Technician/Outreach Coordinator Karen Bastian facilitated communication between multiple base organizations and five base civil engineering shops to ensure the base shops were involved and providing input throughout the process. Hill AFB Energy Engineer Brian Walsh provided subject matter expertise in engineering and energy management to develop the energy conservation measures.

“I have had a terrific experience working with Hill AFB as they are very engaged, dedicated and hardworking to move the project forward to full completion,” Carvalho said.

Because of its innovation, unique collaboration efforts and inclusion of both process and facility improvements, Hill AFB is in the running for a Department of Energy Federal Energy and Water Management Award.

“The Energy Office would highly recommend any federal entity implementing an energy contract to check into local utility rebates as an option to garner additional funding,” King said.
#### Mears, Matter of, v Andrias

2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1064

denied