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:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                               
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (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     
|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
No. 12-7454.

#### Tong Xiong *v.*Felker, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



 <ARTICLE> 5
 <LEGEND>
 This Schedule contains summary financial
 information extracted from the financial
 statements contained in the body of the
 accompanying Form 10-K and is qualified in its
 entirety by reference to such financial
 statements.
 </LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
        
 <S>                           <C>
 <PERIOD-START>                Jun-01-1995
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                 8-mos
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Jan-31-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                  Jan-31-1996
 <CASH>                        0
 <SECURITIES>                  0
 <RECEIVABLES>                 23,388
 <ALLOWANCES>                  0
 <INVENTORY>                   31,207
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>              57,005
 <PP&E>                        3,440
 <DEPRECIATION>                732
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                60,384
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         25,592
 <BONDS>                       0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
 <PREFERRED>                   1,650
 <COMMON>                      36
 <OTHER-SE>                    2,500
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  60,384
 <SALES>                       68,519
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>              68,519
 <CGS>                         57,390
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                 57,390
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>              5,349
 <LOSS-PROVISION>              0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>            2,605
 <INCOME-PRETAX>               3,175
 <INCOME-TAX>                  1,300
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>           1,875
 <DISCONTINUED>                0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>               0
 <CHANGES>                     0
 <NET-INCOME>                  1,875
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                 .32
 <EPS-DILUTED>                 0
         


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 10.5**

**MENTOR CORPORATION**

**DESCRIPTION OF COMPANY INCENTIVE BONUS PLANS**

The Company Incentive BonusPlans consist of a Quarterly Incentive Bonus Plan and an Annual Incentive BonusPlan.  

*Quarterly IncentiveBonus Plan. *Essentiallyall U.S. employees, excluding sales representatives, are eligible toparticipate in this plan.  Under this plan, participants are eligible to receive a quarterlyincentive bonus equal to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of theirsalaries.  The bonus is earned if the Company achieves its targetedconsolidated operating earnings for the applicable quarter, as established bythe Board of Directors at the beginning of the fiscal year.  To receive theQuarterly Incentive Bonus, a participant must be actively employed throughout theapplicable quarter and when the bonus is distributed.

*Annual Incentive BonusPlan. *Essentiallyall U.S. management employees are eligible to participate in this plan.  Under this plan, participants areeligible to receive an annual incentive bonus equal to a designated percentageof their salaries.  To receive the Annual Incentive Bonus, a participantmust be employed at the end of the fiscal year and when the bonus isdistributed, and participants who were not actively employed for the fullfiscal year will be eligible for a bonus on a pro-rated basis.  The maximum bonuspercentage that participants can earn under this plan, assuming achievement ofall individual goals and Company targets, ranges from 6.6% to 79.2% of theirbase salary, depending on the participant's managerial level.  

The Annual Incentive BonusPlan is designed around two general concepts: individual performance and Companyachievement of its consolidated operating income targets.  

Each participant iseligible to receive up to 30% of his or her total bonus potential under theAnnual Incentive Bonus Plan, provided the Company's operating income equals orexceeds its threshold for the year, as established by the Board of Directors atthe beginning of the fiscal year.  The actual pay-out for this portion of thebonus will be based on the participant's accomplishment of his or her specifiedobjectives, as well as an assessment of his or her overall performance. 

Each participant is also eligibleto receive up to an additional 70% of his or her total bonus potential underthe Annual Incentive Bonus Plan, provided the Company's operating income equalsor exceeds its threshold for the year, which is also established by the Boardof Directors.  This threshold is set higher than the minimum threshold requiredto trigger the 30% portion of the bonus described above.  Once the minimumthreshold is achieved, further operating income targets on a sliding scaleallow for a percentage of the bonus pay-out based on the level of actualcorporate operating income achieved.  The participant's actual pay-out will be adjustedbased on an assessment of the individual's overall performance.
No. 12-8409.

#### Moreno-Hernandez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Perez, Matter of, v Richmond

2d Dept: 148 AD3d 904

denied*
No. 12-8649.

#### Charles *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Sherman, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 818]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered November 27, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a *467reasonable doubt *(see People v Williams,*84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]). Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because of inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses is without merit. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be resolved by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. 12-8741.

#### Worthy *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1853 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1853

 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to extend 
     Federal assistance programs related to educational television 
                  programming, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 10 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Pell, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Simon, 
 Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following bill; which 
    was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to extend 
     Federal assistance programs related to educational television 
                  programming, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ready To Learn Reauthorization Act 
of 1994''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

    Section 4702(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 3161a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``, 
nongovernmental''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 4706(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 3161e(a)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$25,000,000 for fiscal year 1993'' and 
        inserting ``$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1995''; and
            (2) by striking ``for fiscal year 1994.'' and inserting 
        ``for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.''.

                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000266 05-JUL-2013 08:09 AM
#### In the Matter of Marisol Rodriguez, Petitioner, v Shola Olatoye, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 879]

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority, dated September 2, 2015, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s grievance seeking succession rights to the tenancy of her late grandmother, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered May 26, 2016), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including a lease and investigative evidence reflecting petitioner’s residency elsewhere, supports respondent’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing continuous occupancy in the subject apartment for one year prior to her grandmother’s death *(see Matter of Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., Amsterdam Houses,*129 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2015]; *Matter of Jacobowitz v New York City Hous. Auth.,*49 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
# DLA Fire and Emergency Services Displays Fire Equipment at Navy Recruiting Command Family Picnic

/ Published June 18, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Defense Logistics Agency Fire and Emergency Services participated in the Navy Recruiting Command family picnic at the newly constructed park at the west end of the Defense Supply Center Columbus June 14.

                DLA Fire and Emergency Services Displays Fire Equipment at Navy Recruiting Command Family Picnic                            A family learns about the different features on a fire truck during a Navy Recruiting Command family picnic at the Defense Supply Center Columbus June 14. During the event, Fire and Emergency Services promoted fire safety and displayed a 100-foot ladder truck, personal protective gear and a variety of firefighter tools.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Assistant Fire Chief Neil McConnell  VIRIN: 190614-D-D0441-123The department promoted fire safety during the event. Emergency services displayed a 100-foot ladder truck, personal protective gear and a variety of firefighter tools. Additionally, the team gave fire apparatus tours to families.

“We always have a good time interacting with the military community at DSCC,” said Bob Watkins, firefighter and EMT. “They always appreciate what we do as we appreciate what they do. Any time we can assist with their unit or family events, we gladly assist with whatever they need.”

Several children and adults were interested in the tools and equipment that firefighters used on a daily basis along with learning how a fire pump works.
No. 12-7486.

#### Tschacher v. United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
March 4, 2013

No. 12-8513.

#### Rich *v.*Tamez, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rosa Jimenez, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 717]

*409Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J. at plea; Marcy L. Kahn, J. at sentencing), rendered May 13, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing her to three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the plea court failed to advise her of the true immigration consequences of her plea is unpreserved *(see People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168, 182-183 [2013], *cert denied*574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court met its obligation under *Peque (see id.*at 196-197) by warning defendant that there was “a good likelihood” that she “could” be deported, since *Peque*does not “require a plea court to ascertain whether a particular conviction carries mandatory deportation under federal law and advise a defendant accordingly” *(People v Manuel,*143 AD3d 473, 474 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1147 [2017]). In any event, even where deportation is legally mandatory, as a practical matter it still requires the immigration authorities to take the necessary actions, and thus the deportation consequences of defendant’s plea could fairly be characterized as likely rather than absolutely certain.

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   425,662
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             18,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         608,924
<PP&E>                                11,899,932
<DEPRECIATION>                           517,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        22,639,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,127,195
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  14,016
<OTHER-SE>                            19,908,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          22,639,090
<SALES>                                5,534,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       5,534,249
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       8,709,612
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       445,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (4,308,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (4,308,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                          (283,625)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (4,592,090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.36)



</TABLE>
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Indonesia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Indonesia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul  | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     | 5.48 | 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
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

373 

CA 15-01415 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

DONALD J. GARVIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EDWARD C. WOJCIK, JR., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

CHIACCHIA & FLEMING, LLP, HAMBURG (DANIEL J. CHIACCHIA OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered April 21, 2015 in a personal injury action. 

The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing

plaintiff’s complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied

and the complaint is reinstated. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries he sustained while cutting down a tree on defendant’s

property. Plaintiff and a third party volunteered to help defendant

remove trees from his property. Defendant told the parties which

direction a certain tree needed to fall, and the parties decided to

delimb the tree first. Using his own chainsaw and defendant’s ladder,

plaintiff started removing branches from the tree. Defendant

positioned the ladder after each branch was removed. Plaintiff had

cut almost all the way through one particular branch and commented to

defendant and the third party, who were standing on the ground, that

the branch was not sagging as he had expected it would. Plaintiff

testified that either defendant or the third party or both told him to

“just cut it.” Plaintiff continued cutting, and then the branch

suddenly swung toward him and struck the ladder, causing him to fall

to the ground and sustain injuries.

Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary

judgment dismissing the complaint. It is well settled that a

landowner owes those on his property a duty of “reasonable care under

the circumstances” (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241). Here,

plaintiff was not injured owing to an unsafe condition on the

property, but rather he was injured as “the direct result of the

manner in which [he] engaged in a voluntary activity” on the property
-2- 373 

CA 15-01415 

(Jarvis v Eastman, 202 AD2d 826, 827; see Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918,

919, mot to amend remittitur granted 71 NY2d 949). In support of his

motion, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that his

participation in the injury-producing activity was not causally

related to the accident (see Lichtenthal v St. Mary’s Church, 166 AD2d

873, 875; cf. Macey, 70 NY2d at 919-920; Jones v County of Erie, 121

AD3d 1562, 1562-1563).

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court