alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(May 12, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Christopher J. Cassar, on Behalf of Dimitri Jones, Petitioner, v Vincent F. DeMarco et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 901]

—Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to reduce bail upon Suffolk County Indictment No. 829/17.

Adjudged that the writ is sustained, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reducing bail on Suffolk County Indictment No. 829/17 to the sum of $100,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing the sum of $50,000, as a cash bail alternative, on condition that the defendant surrender any and all passports he may have to the Office of the District Attorney of Suffolk County and is prohibited from applying for any new or replacement passports; and it is further,

Ordered that upon receipt of a copy of this decision, order and judgment together with proof that the defendant has (1) given an insurance company bail bond in the sum of $100,000 or has deposited the sum of $50,000 as a cash bail alternative, and (2) surrendered any and all passports he may have to the Office of the District Attorney of Suffolk County, and has provided the Office of the District Attorney of Suffolk County with an affidavit attesting that he has not and will not apply for any new or replacement passports, the Warden of the facility at which the defendant is incarcerated, or his or her agent, is directed to immediately release the defendant.

Mastro, J.R, Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                            
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                       
|No chart available.                                                       
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Illinois 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
# C_2010125EN.01000501.xml

| 13.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5772 — NPM Capital/Cyrte/BOL.COM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 125/02

On 5 May 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5772. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5772. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Riheam Gilley et al., Appellants, v Haywood Brown, Defendant, and Saqar Hayat et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 629]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated November 22, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Saqar Hayat and Reck Service Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff Riheam Gilley did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and (2) an order of the same court *676dated April 28, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue the defendants’ prior motion for summary-judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 28, 2003, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 22, 2002, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is denied, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents, and the order dated April 28, 2003, is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

To be entitled to summary judgment, the respondents were required to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff Riheam Gilley did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Meyer v Gallardo,*260 AD2d 556 [1999]). The respondents failed to do so. The respondents’ medical evidence failed to address the plaintiffs’ allegations that Gilley suffered from a restriction of motion in the lumbar and cervical spine *(see Meyer v Gallardo, supra).*

Under the circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to the original motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The appeal from so much of the order dated April 28, 2003, as denied that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for leave to reargue must be dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue. Additionally, in light of our determination, on the appeal from the order dated November 22, 2002, the appeal from so much of the order dated April 28, 2003, as denied that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for leave to renew must be dismissed as academic. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
# DLA helps Army achieve mission success

/ Published Jan. 29, 2019

The Defense Logistics Agency uses customer support representatives located close to units and vendors around the world to support the Army in garrison and combat environments. See how DLA works with Army logisticians to provide supplies like clothing, medical supplies and repair parts in a new video, “U.S. Army Mission Success.” 

DLA Distribution officials keep in contact with DLA major subordinate commands and the Agency Synchronization Operations Center before and during deployments to stay up-to-date on soldiers’ logistics needs. And warehouse personnel are ready to pick, pack and issue any number of items from their 4 million-plus inventory of supplies. 

DLA has more than 25,000 civilian and military employees operating across the United States and around the world to provide everything from food to fuel. It manages nine supply chains, supports roughly 2,300 weapons systems and provides more than $35 billion in goods and services annually.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
     Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-005 (the "Exchange Act
     periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
     do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
     material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
     the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
     with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
     by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
     the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
     obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
     of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required
     to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
     and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to
     this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
     instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

     JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006

/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum
-----------------------

Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FRANK ZAMPOGNA,

 Respondent

 v.

LAW ENFORCEMENT HEALTH

BENEFITS, INC.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 17 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is hereby GRANTED on the following issues as stated by Petitioner:

a. Whether Courts may disregard the vital function of corporate

self-governance by second-guessing the decisions of corporate

directors and failing to provide the required deference to their

decision simply because the court may not agree with the decision?

b. Whether a court may simply usurp the role of corporate directors by

negating the presumption of good-faith to the decisions of directors

required by law by simply asserting, without requiring any proof

thereof, a conflict of interest by the directors?

 c. Whether funds, whose original source was a public entity, retain

their public character once the public entity distributes those funds

to a private corporation in satisfaction of an obligation, and after the

private corporation had retained those funds as corporate assets,

and after that corporation utilized the corporate assets for a

corporate purpose?
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14292]



[[Page 29591]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1240

[Docket No. 97N-0418]


Revocation of Lather Brushes Regulation; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final 
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of May 12, 1998. The 
document that revoked regulations pertaining to the treatment, 
sterilization, handling, storage, marketing, and inspection of lather 
brushes. The document published with an inadvertent error. This 
document corrects that error.

DATES: The final rule is effective June 11, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip L. Chao, Policy Development and 
Coordination Staff (HF-23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers 
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3380.

    In FR Doc. 98-12450 appearing on page 26077 in the Federal Register 
of Tuesday, May 12, 1998, the following correction is made:
    On page 26077, in the second column, in the heading, the docket 
number ``97P-0418'' is corrected to read ``97N-0418''.

    Dated: May 21, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-14292 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-18-0000552

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LANCE KAMUELA GOMES, Defendant-Appellant

A PPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT LIHU # E DIVISION ( 5DCW-18-0000309)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Chan and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon review of the record in CAAP-18-0000552, itappears this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. DefendantAppellant Lance Kamuela Gomes filed a Notice of Appeal on July 13, 2018, from 5DCW-18-0000309. "[I]n order to appeal a criminal matter in the district court, the appealing party must appeal from a written judgment or order that has been filed with the clerk of the court pursuant to [Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure] Rule 4(b)(3)." State v. Bohannon, 102 Hawai # i 228, 236, 74 P.3d 980, 988 (2003) (emphasis omitted). The record on appeal does not contain an appealable final judgment or order. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000552 07-AUG-2020 08:57 AMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### Therefore, the appeal is premature and this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 7, 2020. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEOFFREY ALAN BECKNER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 200 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Truck (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Truck (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      | 199    | 280    | 237    | 377    | 696    | 607    | 1,131 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 832    | 1,378  | 1,628  | 689    |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1933 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1933

 To repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 15 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank, 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. REPEAL OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID COVERAGE DATA BANK.

    (a) Repeal.--
            (1) In general.--Section 13581 of the Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1993 is hereby repealed.
            (2) Application of the social security act.--The Social 
        Security Act shall be applied and administered as if section 
        13581 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (and the 
        amendments made by such section) had not been enacted.
    (b) Study and Report.--
            (1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
        (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
        shall conduct a study on how to achieve the objectives of the 
        data bank described in section 1144 of the Social Security Act 
        (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
        this Act) in the most cost-effective manner, taking into 
        account--
                    (A) the administrative burden of such data bank on 
                private sector entities and governments,
                    (B) the possible duplicative reporting requirements 
                of the Health Care Financing Administration in effect 
                on such date of enactment, and
                    (C) the legal ability of such entities and 
                governments to acquire the required information.
            (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the Congress on 
        the results of the study described in paragraph (1) by not 
        later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
---

---

| |  | Exhibit
        13.2
| |  | --------------------
| |  |                     

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
Annual Report on Form 20-F TTI Team Telecom International Ltd. (the Company) for the
period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the Report), I, Israel (Eli) Ofer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
results
of operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 30, 2004 | /s/ Israel (Eli) Ofer
        Israel (Eli) Ofer 
        Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
2017-0242.

#### State ex rel. Curtis v. Vital Statistics Registrar, Brown Cty. Health Dept.

Brown App. No. CA2017-01-001.

French, J., dissents.
No. 12-7996.

#### Vanover *v.*Brunsman, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.