alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         423,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,242,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,000
<INVENTORY>                                    181,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,991,000
<PP&E>                                      10,852,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,698,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,557,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,013,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,039,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,557,000
<SALES>                                      2,344,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,344,000
<CGS>                                        1,641,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  484,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (34,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                167,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            164,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   164,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011197EN.01003701.xml

| 5.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/37

---

Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the Community Fisheries Control Agency for the financial year 2011

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 100 of 31 March 2011
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 100 of 31 March 2011

(2011/C 197/08)

On page 148, the table should read as follows:

‘Establishment plan

| Function group and grade | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Permanent posts | Temporary posts | Permanent posts | Temporary posts | Permanent posts | Temporary posts |
| AD 16 | | | | | | |
| AD 15 | | | | | | |
| AD 14 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| AD 13 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| AD 12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| AD 11 | | 1 | | | | |
| AD 10 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| AD 9 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 6 |
| AD 8 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| AD 7 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| AD 6 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| AD 5 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| Total AD | 8 | 14 | 6 | 14 | 4 | 16 |
| AST 11 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
| AST 10 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | | 6 |
| AST 9 | | 3 | | 3 | | 3 |
| AST 8 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | 3 |
| AST 7 | | 9 | | 8 | | 8 |
| AST 6 | | 3 | | 3 | | 3 |
| AST 5 | | 5 | | 6 | | 6 |
| AST 4 | | | | | | |
| AST 3 | | | | | | 1 |
| AST 2 | | 3 | | 3 | | 2 |
| AST 1 | | | | | | |
| Total AST | 2 | 31 | 2 | 31 | | 33 |
| Grand total | 10 | 45 | 8 | 45 | 4 | 49’ |

Function group and grade

2009

2010

2011

Permanent posts

Temporary posts

Permanent posts

Temporary posts

Permanent posts

Temporary posts

AD 16

AD 15

AD 14

1

1

1

AD 13

1

1

1

AD 12

2

2

1

2

1

2

AD 11

1

AD 10

1

1

1

AD 9

4

4

3

5

2

6

AD 8

2

1

2

1

1

2

AD 7

1

1

1

AD 6

1

1

1

AD 5

1

1

1

Total AD

8

14

6

14

4

16

AST 11

1

1

1

AST 10

1

5

1

5

6

AST 9

3

3

3

AST 8

1

2

1

2

3

AST 7

9

8

8

AST 6

3

3

3

AST 5

5

6

6

AST 4

AST 3

1

AST 2

3

3

2

AST 1

Total AST

2

31

2

31

33

Grand total

10

45

8

45

4

49’

---
#### Farouk Al-Salihi, Appellant, v Upstate NY Comprehensive Clinical Competency Center of Albany Medical College, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 654]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered August 30, 2016, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that defendant was entitled to immunity for its role in evaluating plaintiff’s competency to engage in the practice of medicine (Education Law § 6527 [5]; Public Health Law § 2805-m [3]; *see Farooq v Coffey,*206 AD2d 879 [4th Dept 1994]; *Dos v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., Smithtown,*199 AD2d 460, 461 [2d Dept 1993]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

Motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix granted to the extent of allowing inclusion of material from the peer review process.
No. 12-8189.

#### Salinas *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Small Business team recognized at commander’s town hall

/ Published March 22, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio,
# L_2011324EN.01003301.xml

| 7.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 324/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 324/33

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 1 December 2011

appointing a Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2011/813/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Miguel LUCENA BARRANQUERO, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Miguel LUCENA BARRANQUERO,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Ms Elvira SAINT-GERONS HERRERA, Secretaria General de Acción Exterior de la Junta de Andalucía. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Elvira SAINT-GERONS HERRERA, Secretaria General de Acción Exterior de la Junta de Andalucía.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2011.

For the Council

The President

W. KOSINIAK-KAMYSZ

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
#### Egbert Gouldborne, Jr, et al., Appellants, v Approved Ambulance & Oxygen Service, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 609]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 5, 2002, which, in an action for, inter alia, personal injuries and wrongful death arising out of plaintiffs’ decedent’s fall in an ambulette that was transporting him to *114defendant-respondent hospital for outpatient treatment, insofar as appealed from, granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ argument that the hospital had apparent authority over the ambulette service, and is therefore vicariously liable for the ambulette driver’s alleged negligence, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Ta-Chotani v Doubleclick, Inc.,*276 AD2d 313 [2000]), and we decline to review it. In any event, the ambulette service was an independent contractor for whose negligence the hospital cannot be held liable *(see Kleeman v Rheingold,*81 NY2d 270, 273 [1993]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
No. 12-7936.

#### McCaskey *v.*Henry et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Arch Insurance Company, Respondent, v Old Republic Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[56 NYS3d 100]

*535Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered July 21, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Old Republic Insurance Company is obligated, on an equal basis with plaintiff, to defend and indemnify Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. in the underlying personal injury action, and so declared, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The policy’s conflicting self-insured retention (SIR) clause and private and non-contributory (PNC) endorsement cannot be reconciled as to Bovis, an additional insured. The PNC endorsement, which was added after the effective date of the policy containing the SIR clause and made effective retroactively, is controlling *(see Kratzenstein v Western Assur. Co. of City of Toronto,*116 NY 54, 57-58 [1889]). The clause expressly provides that it “modifies” the relevant coverage to provide to an additional insured “primary insurance on a non-contributory basis” if such coverage is required by the contract between the named insured and the additional insured, as is the case here. The subsequently agreed-to PNC endorsement’s requirement of “primary insurance on a non-contributory basis” is, on its face, inconsistent with, and therefore overrides, the original policy’s $1,000,000 SIR provision. We note that nothing in the contract between Bovis and the named insured supports the conclusion that Bovis consented to a self-insured retention. Indeed, as previously noted, the contract requires that coverage for the additional insured be primary *(see Pecker Iron Works ofN.Y. v Traveler’s Ins. Co.,*99 NY2d 391 [2003]).

We have considered Old Republic’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Cameron, Matter of, v Shah

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 439

denied
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chrystal Deas, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 899]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered June 2, 2014, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly allowed the People to present a courtroom demonstration, during which one of the prosecutors and the complainant demonstrated for the jury the interaction between the defendant and the complainant, is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant’s objections at trial were based upon grounds different than those raised on appeal *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rodriguez,*73 AD3d 815, 815 [2010]; *People v Clas,*54 AD3d 770, 771 [2008]; *People v Saladana,*208 AD2d 872, 872-873 [1994]). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the in-court demonstration *(see People v Barnes,*80 NY2d 867, 868 [1992]; *People v McDaniel,*84 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2011]; *People v Jones,*70 AD3d 1253, 1255 [2010]).

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availabilty of a Pop-up Target System for Non-Exclusive, 
Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive Licensing

AGENCY: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the general availability 
of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses relative to 
a novel pop-up target system as described in the U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory patent docket #ARL 98-16 and a subsequent patent application 
to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A licensing meeting is 
scheduled for Wednesday, 15 July 1998 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 
Visit http://www.fedlabs.org/flc/ma/pl for technical and registration 
information. A non-disclosure agreement must be signed prior to 
attending the licensing meeting. Licenses shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 
209 and 37 CFR 404.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Office of Research and 
Technology Applications, ATTN: AMSRL-CS-TT/Bldg. 434, Aberdeen Proving 
Ground, Maryland 21005-5425, Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.
Mary V. Yonts,
Alternate Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-14558 Filed 6-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|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 Colombia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Colombia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan  | Feb  | Mar  | Apr | May  | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---- | ---- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              |      |      |      |     |      |     |     |     | W   |     |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |      |      |      | W   |      |     |     | W   | W   |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |      |      |      |     | 5.38 |     |     |     |     |     | W   |    
|2024                                                                                                                              | 6.36 | 6.20 | 5.16 |     | 5.16 |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
495 P.2d 147

#### Steven MAHER, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Deanna MAHER, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1000.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

March 30, 1972.

Anderson, Welker & Flake by Dudley S-Welker, Safford, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Flynn, Kimerer, Thinnes & Galbraith by Michael D. Kimerer, Phoenix, for appellee and cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal requires that we consider the single question, whether the trial court erred in granting custody of the parties’' minor children, ages 4 and 7, to their mother. The sole basis for the alleged error is. that there is evidence showing that the-mother is unfit. We have considered the-entire record.

Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the-light most favorable to supporting the decree, we find that there is ample evidence-demonstrating that the mother was a fit and proper person to have custody. The record shows that she was a regular church-, goer and president of her Sunday school class. It further reveals that she is a good homemaker and is described as a “very good mother.” The children appear to be well-adjusted and in good circumstances in her custody.

We will not disturb the judgment on appeal unless it clearly appears that the - discretion of the trial court has been abused. Andro v. Andro, 97 Ariz. 302, 400 P.2d 105 (1965), rehearing denied, 98 Ariz. *231, 401 P.2d 404 (1965); Ward v. Ward, 91 Ariz. 296, 371 P.2d 1022 (1962); Wackerman v. Wackerman, 16 Ariz.App. 382, 493 P.2d 928 (1 CA-CIV 1532, filed February 16, 1972). The record demonstrates ample evidence to support the judgment of the trial court, which we affirm.
160 A.3d 707

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YSAIAS SEVERINO-LANTIGUA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Alabama Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Alabama Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,029  | 1,025  | 1,026 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,018  | 1,018  | 1,016  | 1,017  | 1,024  | 1,030  | 1,029  | 1,030  | 1,028  | 1,028 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,031  | 1,031  | 1,031  | 1,030  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA February 17, 2010 

Available in Regulations.gov docket EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0190

 OK011.0002 Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP, submitted to EPA February 17, 2010 (OK-34). 130 

pages 2.4 MB r3b
#### Com. v. Barry-Gibbons

03/23/2016

491 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 498
#### Williams v Prudential Fin., Inc.

1st Dept: 138 AD3d 643

denied
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1442

WILLIAM C. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AL CANNON, Sheriff, personally and in his official capacity; 

CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STEPHEN C. GATES,

Deputy, personally; TIMOTHY RICHARD BRANHAM, personally; 

CYPRESS RECOVERY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CHAD W. ROOD, Deputy,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-03259-PMD)

Submitted: January 26, 2010 Decided: February 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, 

SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; 
2

James Chaplin Cox, III, GRIER LAW FIRM, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William C. Mitchell appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting 

the defendants summary judgment, and dismissing Mitchell’s 

action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Mitchell v. Cannon, No. 2:07-cv-03259-

PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2009). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED