alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Kuwait (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Kuwait (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr   | May  | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2018                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |       | 6.76 |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |       |      |     |     | W   |     |     |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     | W   |       |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 10.01 |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |       |      | 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
2017-0827.

#### Elliot-Thomas v. Smith.

Trumbull App. No. 2015-T-0007, 2017-Ohio-702. Appellee’s motion to dismiss denied.

O’Donnell, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent and would accept the cause and consolidate it with 2017-0693, *Elliot-Thomas v. Smith.*
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
December 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60105 Summary Calendar

KWOK HUNG TANG,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A76 391 999)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

KOOK Hung Tang petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. He

contends that the evidence attached to the motion demonstrates:

circumstances in Hong Kong have changed since his removal order was
issued; and he will be persecuted by the government if he returns

to Hong Kong.

Tang has failed to produce material evi dence that would

establish his prima facie case for asylum or withholding of removal2

ba sed upon changed conditions in Hong Kong. S ee INS v. Diehard
,

502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992). Therefore, he has not established

that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen.

See Eye v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002); Bahraini v.

United States Immigration an d Naturalization Service , 782 F.2d

1243, 1244 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 479 U.S. 930 (1986).

DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yvette Alexander, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 521]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J. at mistrial; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered September 22, 2014, convicting defendant of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing her to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion when, after accepting a partial verdict acquitting defendant of another charge, it declared a mistrial as to the remaining charge based on an implied finding of manifest necessity. In this brief trial, the jury sent out notes indicating it was deadlocked on the count at issue, before and after the court delivered an *Allen*charge in accordance with defendant’s wishes *(see Matter of Rivera v Firetog,*11 NY3d 501 [2008], *cert denied*556 US 1193 [2009]; *People v Baptiste,*72 NY2d 356 [1988]; *Matter of Plummer v Rothwax,*63 NY2d 243 [1984]). The court sufficiently inquired into the jury’s inability to reach a verdict, and it properly considered but rejected alternatives to a mistrial.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for FFML Trust, Series 2005-FF8 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Plaintiff, v Paul Lamontanaro, Respondent, and Swimming Pools by Jack Anthony, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[53 NYS3d 685]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Swim*681ming Pools by Jack Anthony, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martin, J.), dated December 2, 2014, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Paul Lamontanaro which was pursuant to CPLR 320 (a) and 2103 (b) to strike its cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant Paul Lamontanaro. The defendant Swimming Pools by Jack Anthony, Inc. (hereinafter Jack Anthony), was named as a defendant in the action because Jack Anthony had previously filed a mechanic’s lien against the mortgaged premises. The attorney for Lamontanaro filed a notice of appearance and verified answer in response to the complaint. Approximately five months later, Jack Anthony served an answer which asserted cross claims against Lamon-tanaro and other defendants.

Lamontanaro moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 320 (a) and 2103 (b) to strike Jack Anthony’s cross claims insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of Lamontanaro’s motion, and Jack Anthony appeals.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Lamon-tanaro’s motion which was to strike Jack Anthony’s cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Jack Anthony attempted to serve its answer, including its cross claims, upon Lamontanaro at his residence. However, since Lamontanaro was represented by counsel during the relevant time period, Jack Anthony’s answer was required to have been served upon Lamontanaro’s attorney pursuant to CPLR 2103 (b) *(see Paulus v Christopher Vacirca, Inc.,*128 AD3d 116, 120 [2015]). Furthermore, Jack Anthony’s answer was untimely *(see*CPLR 320 [a]). Contrary to Jack Anthony’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in declining to disregard the above-mentioned defects pursuant to CPLR 2001 *(see Segway of N.Y., Inc. v Udit Group, Inc.,*120 AD3d 789, 791 [2014]).

Eng, P.J., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Order entered March 14, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00262-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.C., A.C., J.D., AND K.J., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-17-00829-W

ORDER

Before the Court is the March 11, 2019 request of Dallas County District Clerk Felicia 

Pitre for an extension of time to file a corrected clerk’s record. The corrected clerk’s record was 

filed on March 12, 2019. Accordingly, we DENY the request as moot.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
2017-0262.

#### State v. Warman.

Butler App. No. CA2016-02-029, 2017-Ohio-244.
2017-0604.

#### State ex rel. Richland Cty. Children Servs. v. Richland Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition and Mandamus. On relators’ motion for emergency stay and alternative writ. Motion denied as moot.
#### People v Hoyos-Sanchez

1st Dept: 147 AD3d 701

denied
Exhibit 15.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-13784 and 333-139512) of our report dated February 25, 2008 with respect to the statements of operation,
changes in shareholders equity and cash flow for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Tadiran Spectralink Ltd., which report is included in this Annual Report of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.              
|    |  | Brightman Almagor & Co.                  
|    |  | A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel-Aviv,
Israel,

March 7, 2010
Exhibit 32.2

# 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/A of Elbit Systems Ltd. (the
Company) for the year ended December  31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), the
undersigned, Joseph Gaspar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: July 6, 2006

| |  |                                      | 
| |  | ------------------------------------ | 
| | 
| |  | /s/ Joseph Gaspar                    | 
| |  | Joseph GasparChief Financial Officer | 
| |
#### In the Matter of Mario L. Bejasa, Jr., a Disbarred Attorney.

[771 NYS2d 636]

—Application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York granted only to the extent of referring this matter to a hearing panel for a report and recommendation, as indicated. No opinion. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF EPIX MEDICAL, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001027702
<NAME>                   EPIX MEDICAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>             1
<CURRENCY>               U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,455,657
<SECURITIES>                                14,356,941
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,123,508
<PP&E>                                       3,347,452
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,093,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,775,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,450,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,183
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,933,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,775,371
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,227,526
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,689,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,112,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,112,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,112,093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)
        


</TABLE>
#### Jimmie Larke, III, et al., Appellants, v Tina McCary Moore, Individually and as Executrix of Melvin E. Moore, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[51 NYS3d 913]

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley Troutman, J.), entered December 16, 2015. The amended order denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and/or reargue.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the amended order insofar as it denied leave to reargue is unanimously dismissed and the amended order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Larke v Moore*([appeal No. 1] 150 AD3d 1620 [2017]).

Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Lindley, DeJoseph and NeMoyer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Natoine Marshall, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 16]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered September 16, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the first-degree robbery conviction to 16 years with 5 years’ postrelease supervision, and otherwise affirmed.

After defendant elicited a portion of a statement made by the victim to a detective after the robbery, the court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit additional portions of the statement that “did no more than to explain, clarify and fully elicit a [statement] only partially examined by the defense” *(People v Ochoa,*14 NY3d 180, 186 [2010]). Defendant’s selective use of certain portions of the *432victim’s statement tended to suggest that the victim had given the detective an account of the robbery that was very different from the victim’s trial testimony, and the court properly allowed the People to correct that false impression.

The court also properly exercised its discretion in admitting recorded telephone calls, made by defendant while incarcerated, whose overall subject matter was defendant’s efforts to induce others to engage in witness tampering. This evidence tended to demonstrate defendant’s consciousness of guilt *(see e.g. People v Squire,*115 AD3d 454, 455-456 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*23 NY3d 1043 [2014]). Defendant’s principal argument is that portions of these calls were not probative of his consciousness of guilt and were prejudicial. However, we find that the portions at issue had a sufficient connection to the pattern of witness tampering, provided relevant background and context, and were not unduly prejudicial.

In any event, we find that any error regarding the victim’s statement to the police, or defendant’s phone calls, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
No. 12-8138.

#### Lancaster *v.*Houston.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30021-30022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
[OJP (OJJDP)-1180]
RIN 1121-ZB17


Announcement of the Availability of the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention FY 1998 Discretionary Program 
Announcement: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Justice.

ACTION: Notice of solicitations.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement of the availability of the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention FY 1998 Discretionary Program 
Announcement: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program.

DATES: Due dates for receipt of applications are specified in the 
solicitations in the Program Announcement.

ADDRESSES: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 810 
Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.


[[Page 30022]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information about application 
procedures and copies of the Program Announcement (discusses the nature 
and purpose of the program and describes application requirements and 
deadlines) and the Application Kit (includes application forms and 
instructions that apply to all OJJDP funding opportunities) are 
available from OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (ordering and 
contact information is found in the Background section). Specific 
questions about the Program Announcement and related requirements 
should be directed to the Program Managers referenced in the Program 
Announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    This action is authorized under the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations 
Act, Pub.L. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (November 26, 1997) under Title III 
of H.R. 3, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 8, 1997.

Background

    Prospective applicants should contact the Juvenile Justice 
Clearinghouse (JJC) for copies of the Program Announcement and 
Application Kit by calling 800-638-8736. To request that a copy be 
mailed to you, select option 2 or 3, and ask for SL 256 for the Program 
Announcement and SL 254 for the Application Kit. To have the 43-page 
Program Announcement faxed to you, call 800-638-8736 and select option 
1 to reach JJC's fax-on-demand service, then choose option 2, and enter 
9047. The Program Announcement and the Application Kit are also 
available on the Internet at www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm; see Grants and 
Funding or New Initiatives sections.

    Dated: May 28, 1998.
John J. Wilson,
Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 98-14568 Filed 6-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
#### Ivan Sutherland, as the Administrator of the Estate of Lillian Sutherland, Deceased, Respondent, v Comprehensive Care Management Corporation, Defendant, and Joey Galito, Doing Business as D&J Ambulette Service, et al., Appellants.

[62 NYS3d 800]—

*415Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motions of defendants Joey Galito doing business as D&J Ambulette Service (D&J) and Health Acquisition Corp. formerly known as Allen Health Care Services, Inc. (HAC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied in this action where plaintiff’s decedent, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, was injured when she fell down the stairs in her home after being left unattended. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were negligent because after attending day care, the decedent was to be transported home by D&J and left in the care of an aide, who was employed by HAC. The record presents triable issues as to how the accident occurred, the resolution of which will require assessing the credibility of witnesses with conflicting testimony (see *e.g. Nyala C. v Miniventures Child Care Dev. Ctr., Inc.,*133 AD3d 467 [1st Dept 2015]; *Sanchez v Finke,*288 AD2d 122 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 209-210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Coalition Warfare

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Coalition Warfare will 
meet in closed session on January 26-27 and February 12-13, 1998 at 
Strategic Analysis, Inc., Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will address how best to make future U.S. military 
capabilities, embodied by JV2010, coalition compatible
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II (1994)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b<Copyright> (1) (1991), and that accordingly 
these meetings will be closed to the public.


[[Page 210]]


    Dated: December 24, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-15 Filed 1-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### Com. v. Robinson

04/06/2016

637 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 665
#### Crivellaro v. Williams Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

08/16/2016

183 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 130 A.3d 162
#### People v Rossano

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1042

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
#### People v Cepeda

2d Dept: 148 AD3d 942

denied*