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:                                                      
|                                                                   
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From Canada (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      | 555    | 132    | 437    | 924    | 1,569  | 1,885  | 226   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 43     | 165    | 1,732  | 2,052  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 12.07  | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | 13.29  | 14.35  | 14.48  | 12.36  | 7.50   | 8.05   | 12.71  | 9.35  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 9.45   | 12.47  | 16.95  | 14.54  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Douglas Painter et al., Appellants, v Peek’n Peak Recreation, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 678]

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua . County (Gerace, J.), entered December 13, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Douglas Painter (plaintiff) while skiing at defendants’ skiing facility. Plaintiff was injured when *1290his ski came into contact with what he described in his deposition testimony as a “submerged ice divot” and what his wife described in her deposition testimony as being “like a curb.” Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the affirmative defense of assumption of risk and properly denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that affirmative defense. We reject plaintiffs’ contention that General Obligations Law § 18-101 does not include “subsurface ice” as an inherent risk of downhill skiing. Section 18-101 (1) provides that “downhill skiing, like many other sports, contains inherent risks, including, but not limited to, the risks of personal injury or death . . . , which may be caused by variations in terrain or weather conditions; [and] surface or subsurface snow, ice, bare spots or areas of thin cover, moguls, ruts, [or] bumps . . . .” We conclude that the Legislature intended to apply the term “surface or subsurface” to all of the items listed after that term, i.e., snow, ice, bare spots, or areas of thin cover, moguls, ruts or bumps, all of which are conditions that may be encountered by a skier either on the surface of the terrain or below the surface.

Furthermore, “[r]elieving an owner or operator of a sporting venue from liability for inherent risks of engaging in a sport is justified when a consenting participant is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” *(Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]). Here, plaintiff testified at his deposition that he had nearly 60 years of experience skiing and had considered himself to be an expert skier when he was younger. He further testified that he had skied the slope on which he was injured “hundreds of times.” The record establishes herein that “the risks of the activity [were] fully comprehended” by plaintiff *(Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]; *see Giordano v Shanty Hollow Corp.,*209 AD2d 760, 760-761 [1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 802 [1995]), and thus the court properly determined that plaintiff assumed the inherent risk of the presence of subsurface ice. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
2017-1186.

#### State v. Prieto.

Mahoning App. No. 15 MA 0200, 2016-0hio-8480. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied. Cause dismissed.
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 Micropac Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  May 30,  2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
Cefalu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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.



   Date:  July 14, 2009                                  /s/ Patrick Cefalu
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Patrick Cefalu
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Com. v. Stephens

10/07/2015

152 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1128
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 2 

FEB 2 8 2011 

Honorable Chris Christie 

Governor of the State ofNew Jersey 

Office of the Governor 

PO Box 001 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Dear Governor Christie: 

290 BROADWAY 

NEW YORK, NY 10007·1866 

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S02) by establishing 

a new !-hour standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). This new !-hour standard will 

protect public health by reducing people's exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) 

concentrations of S02• An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average of the 99th 

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. 

Section 107(d)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for 

designating areas as meeting or not meeting a new or revised NAAQS. Within one year of 

establishing a new or revised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of 

attairunent, nonattainment or unclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designation recommendations, including 

appropriate area boundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour S02 

NAAQS. 

The enclosed memorandum provides guidance to state and local air pollution control 

agencies and tribes on the time line and process for designating areas under the revised so2 

standard. We plan to announce our intended designations no later than 120 days prior to 

promulgating final designations. Following the announcement of intended designations, states 

and tribes will have the opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their 

recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no later than June 3, 2012. 

Establishing area designations is a key step in the process of providing the health 

protection intended by the CAA. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please do not 

hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Raymond Werner, Chief Air Programs Branch, 

at 212-637-3706. 

Sincerely, 

0 I~ jo -fl.. '2 f" c}<-

Judith A. Enck 

Regional Administrator 

Internet Address (URl) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recyo;:lediRecyclable • Printed wlltl Vegetabla 01 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mnmum 30"/o Poslcoosumef) 
Enclosure 

Cc: Bob Martin, Commissioner 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                                  118
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                            235
<INVENTORY>                                          11,747
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     20,395
<PP&E>                                                4,887
<DEPRECIATION>                                        2,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       26,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11,460
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 39
<OTHER-SE>                                           14,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         26,802
<SALES>                                              42,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     42,153
<CGS>                                                29,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        29,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      8,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       3,246
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (2,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   5,346
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          5,346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.38


</TABLE>
II

Calendar No. 720

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2023

[Report No. 103–406]

To provide for the transfer of certain real property to the General Services

Administration and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 14 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported by Mr. GLENN, without amendment

A BILL

To provide for the transfer of certain real property to the

General Services Administration and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF WRANGELL INSTITUTE.

4 (a) PROPERTY TRANSFER.—Cook Inlet Region, In5 corporated (hereinafter ‘‘Landowner’’), is authorized to

6 transfer to the United States, and the General Services
2

•S 2023 RS

1 Administration shall accept, an approximately 10-acre

2 portion of Lot 4, United States Survey No. 3403, in

3 Wrangell, Alaska, known as the Wrangell Institute, and

4 the structures contained thereon.

5 (b) RESTORATION OF PROPERTY CREDITS.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—In exchange for the land

7 and structures transferred under subsection (a), the

8 landowner shall receive property bidding credits in

9 the form of acres or acre-equivalents to be restored

10 to the property account in the Treasury established

11 under section 12(b) of the Act of January 2, 1976,

12 as amended (Public Law 94–204, as amended; 43

13 U.S.C. 1611 note), for the following amounts—

14 (A) $382,305 in principal;

15 (B) interest calculated in accordance with

16 paragraph (3); and

17 (C) an amount sufficient to reimburse the

18 landowner for all legal and other expenses in19 curred due to the return of this property.

20 (2) USE OF CREDITS.—All such credits restored

21 or added to the property account shall be used solely

22 for the acquisition or purchase of General Services

23 Administration properties.

24 (3) CALCULATION OF INTEREST.—The interest

25 credited to the property account shall be
3

•S 2023 RS

1 compounded semiannually and calculated at the

2 same interest rate as the fixed rate used for a 5-year

3 Treasury bond issue by the United States Treasury

4 on or about November 2, 1987. The interest shall be

5 calculated on the amount specified in paragraph

6 (1)(A), and shall be for the time period from No7 vember 2, 1987, to the date of conveyance of the

8 land and buildings to the United States.

9 (3) HOLD HARMLESS.—The United States shall

10 defend and hold harmless the landowner and its sub11 sidiaries in any and all claims arising from any own12 ership of the land and structures prior to their re13 turn to the United States under this Act.
Calendar No. 720

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2023

[Report No. 103–406]

A BILL

To provide for the transfer of certain real property

O

other purposes.to the General Services Administration and for

CTOBER 7 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported without amendment
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export 
Council

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Amended notice of an open meeting.

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

    The schedule for the June 2, 1998, President's Export Council 
meeting has been changed. The new schedule is as follows:

DATES: June 2, 1998.

TIME: 9:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The J.W. Marriott Hotel, Salon G, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20004. This program is physically accessible to 
people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or 
other auxiliary aids should be submitted by May 15, 1998, to J. Marc 
Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 2015B, Washington, D.C., 
20230. Seating is limited and will be on a first come first serve 
basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Marc Chittum, President's Export 
Council, Room 2015B, Washington, D.C., 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1124).

    Dated: May 27, 1998.
J. Marc Chittum,
Staff Director and Executive Secretary, President's Export Council.
[FR Doc. 98-14455 Filed 5-28-98; 9:41 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-U
# L_2011336EN.01008501.xml

| 20.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 336/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/85

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/851/EU of 12 December 2011 on an additional Union financial contribution for 2006 and 2007 to cover expenditure incurred by Portugal for the purpose of combating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner et Buhrer) Nickle et al. (pinewood nematode)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 335 of 17 December 2011
  )

In the title on the cover page and on page 107, and in the signature on page 108:

for:

‘
  12 December 2011
  ’,

read:

‘
  15 December 2011
  ’.

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements 

RONALD ARTIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1188-10-1 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 9, 2010 

CITY OF PORTSMOUTH DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

John E. Clarkson, Judge 

 (Michael Rosenberg; Richardson and Rosenberg, LLC, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (G. Timothy Oksman, City Attorney; Shelia C. Riddick, 

 Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. 

 (Nathan A. Chapman; Chapman Law Firm, on brief), Guardian ad 

litem for the minor children. 

 On May 15, 2010, the trial court entered an order terminating the residual parental rights 

of Ronald Artis (“father”) to his three minor children, C.T., S.A., and A.A., pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(B) and (C)(1). Father does not appeal the termination of his residual parental rights 

under subsection (B), but contends the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s 

decision under subsection (C). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 While the best interests of the child is “the paramount consideration of a trial court” in a 

termination proceeding, Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991), terminations under Code § 16.1-283(B) and the subsections of Code 

§ 16.1-283(C) provide distinct, “individual bases upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate 

residual parental rights.” City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 

556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). 

 Because father does not challenge the trial court’s decision to terminate his residual 

parental rights under subsection (B), the issue of whether termination was warranted pursuant to 

subsection (C) is rendered moot. Accordingly, we need not consider it. See Fields v. Dinwiddie 

County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005) (termination of 

parental rights upheld under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 forecloses need to consider 

termination under alternative subsections). 

 The trial court’s decision is summarily affirmed. See Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
*April 26,*2017

2017-Ohio-1536.]

2016-1319.

#### State v. Garcia.

Summit App. Nos. 27810 and 17811, 2016-Ohio-4667. On appellant’s motion to expedite decision to accept or deny jurisdiction. Motion denied as moot.
#### Richmond Holdings, LLC, et al., Appellants, v David S. Frankel, P.C., et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 672]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered January 28, 2015, which, upon an order of the same court entered July 2, 2014, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To sustain a cause of action alleging legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages *(see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,*26 NY3d 40, 49-50 [2015]; *Jorge v Hector Atilio Morichal, P.C.,*140 AD3d 1020 [2016]). Proximate cause in the context of legal malpractice means that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action or that the plaintiff would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages but for the attorney’s negligence *(see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,*26 NY3d at 50; *Jorge v Hector Atilio Marichal, P.C.,*140 AD3d 1020 [2016]).

Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the evidence they submitted in support of the motion demonstrated that they did not breach their duty of care to the plaintiffs and, in any event, any alleged breach was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ damages. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any alleged negligence by the defendants proximately caused the plaintiffs to sustain actual and ascertainable damages.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defend*1169ants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.