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 Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Kuwait (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Kuwait (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul  | Aug | Sep   | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | ---
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |     | 43.63 |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     | 8.15 |     |       |     |     |    
|- = 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
#### Guarnieri v. Guardian Warranty Corp.

12/16/2015

458 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1120
Exhibit 31.2I, William W. Phillips, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harrington West FinancialGroup, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2006                                                              /s/ WILLIAM W. PHILLIPS   William W. Phillips,   President, Chief Operating Officer and
#### Cathy Pichler, Appellant, v Joan Jackson, Respondent.

[68 NYS3d 441]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her third and fourth causes of action, seeking an accounting and apportionment, pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1201, respectively, and leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously reversed, on the law, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her third and fourth causes of action and leave to amend the complaint granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As tenants in common, the parties have a quasi-trust or fiduciary relation with regard to the property they commonly hold, supporting plaintiff’s third cause of action for an account*451ing *(see Minion v Warner,*238 NY 413 [1924]; *Thayer v Leggett,*229 NY 152, 157-158 [1920]). Even absent any such common-law obligation, a statutory duty to account would exist, pursuant to RPAPL 1201, entitling plaintiff to recover under her fourth cause of action *(see Degliuomini v Degliuomini,*12 AD3d 634, 635 [2d Dept 2004]). Defendant’s claim of prematurity is rejected. Defendant shall provide an accounting, including an itemization of the monies received and payments made in operating the property. After providing the accounting, plaintiff will be permitted to interpose her specific objections. The bona fides of the objections will then be resolved by the court. Nor is the accounting premature because there is simultaneously ongoing discovery on the parties’ claims.

Leave to amend the pleadings must “be freely given” (CPLR 3025 [b]), and should have been granted here given the nature of the parties’ relationship (see *Minion v Warner; Thayer v Leggett).*

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-11448.

#### Travis Edward Dittrich, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 881, 131 S. Ct. 201,

178 L. Ed. 2d 121,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7044.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 411.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L.Demorest, Chief Executive Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of MOCON, Inc.

 

 

Date:  November 12, 2010

 
| /s/  Robert L. Demorest  |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Robert  L. Demorest      |   |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |   |
|                     |   |   |

 

----
No. 12-763.

#### Asgeirsson et al. *v.*Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Letitia James, Respondent, et al., Petitioners, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants.

[60 NYS3d 810]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 29, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as against respondents New York City Department of Education and Chancellor Carmen Farina, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion to dismiss the proceeding as against those respondents granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The Public Advocate lacks capacity to bring this suit, since she undisputedly lacks express statutory authority to do so, and such capacity is not implied by her powers and duties pursuant to NY City Charter § 24 *(see Community Bd.*7 *of Borough of Manhattan v Schaffer,*84 NY2d 148, 155-156 [1994]; *cf. Matter of Green v Safir,*174 Misc 2d 400 [Sup Ct, NY County 1997], *affd*255 AD2d 107 [1st Dept 1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 882 [1999]).

*425The Public Advocate also lacks standing to bring this suit. The Public Advocate, who does not claim third-party standing, fails to establish that she will suffer harm in the absence of the relief sought, since she does not challenge any administrative act or omission interfering with matters within her purview *(cf. Matter of City of New York v City Civ. Serv. Commn.,*60 NY2d 436, 443 [1983]).

In any event, petitioners are not entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of mandamus *(Matter of County of Chemung v Shah,*28 NY3d 244, 266 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), which “is generally not available to compel government officials to enforce laws and rules or regulatory schemes that plaintiffs claim are not being adequately pursued” *(Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept.,*152 AD3d 113, 118 [1st Dept 2017]). The relief sought does not concern mere “acts which are mandatory but are executed through means that are discretionary,” but involves “acts the exercise of which is discretionary” *(Klostermann v Cuomo,*61 NY2d 525, 539 [1984]), such as deciding whether to seek penalties for particular violations of Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-605 (a) by bus companies in performing their contracts with respondent Department of Education.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### Kashipour v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 985

denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection(ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes 
the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The 
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the above collection of information was published on March 
9, 1998, [63 FR 11472].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Street, ABC-100; Federal 
Aviation Administration; 800 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 
20591; Telephone number (202) 267-9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, Notice of 
Actual Construction or Alteration, and Project Status Request.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0001.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Persons or businesses planning to construct or 
alter a structure that may affect air safety.
    Abstract: Federal Regulations (CFR Part 77 of Title 14 )require all 
persons to report proposed or actual construction/alternation of 
structures affecting air safety in order to promote safety in air 
commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable 
airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public-use airports.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 8,820 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer.
    Comments are Invited on: whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 15,1998.
Vanester M. Williams,
Clearance Officer, United States Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 98-13827 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
161 A.3d 761

#### FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROSE M. REED, DEFENDANT-MOVANT.

March 9, 2017

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motions for leave to file a notice of petition for certification and petition for certification as within time (M-854) and to proceed as an indigent (M-856) are granted.
EX-10.1









EXHIBIT 10.1



THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE




RSA SECURITY INC.

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




(As Effective October 22, 2004)




WHEREAS, RSA Security Inc. (“RSA Security”) maintains the RSA Security Inc. Deferred
Compensation Plan, Effective March 1, 2000; and



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.01 of the Plan, RSA Security has reserved the right to amend
the Plan and now deems it appropriate to do so;




NOW THEREFORE, Sections 4.04 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:



Section 4.04 Modification or revocation of Election by Participant. A Participant
may not change the amount of his Base Salary Deferrals during a Plan Year. However, a Participant
may discontinue a Base Salary Deferral election at any time by filing, on such forms and subject to
such limitations and restrictions as the Administrative Committee may prescribe in its discretion,
a revised Participation Agreement with the Administrative Committee. If approved by the
Administrative Committee, revocation shall take effect as of the first payroll period next
following its filing. If a Participant discontinues a Base Salary Deferral election during a Plan
Year, he will not be permitted to elect to make Base Salary Deferrals again until the later of the
next Plan Year or six months from the date of discontinuance. In addition, the Deferral Period may
be extended if an amended Participation Agreement is filed with the Administrative Committee at
least one month before the Deferral Period (as in effect before such amendment) ends; provided,
that only one such amendment may be filed with respect to each Participation Agreement. Under no
circumstances may a Participant’s Participation Agreement be made, modified or revoked
retroactively, nor may a deferral period be shortened or reduced.




Signed and authorized:



	 	 	 
	ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE /s/Arthur W. Coviello, Jr.

	 	DATE 10/22/04
	 

	 	 
	Arthur Coviello, CEO

	 	

	 
	 	 
	ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE /s/Jeffrey D. Glidden

	 	DATE 10/25/04
	 

	 	 
	Jeffrey Glidden, CFO

	 	

	 
	 	 
	ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE /s/Vivian Vitale

	 	DATE 10/26/04
	 

	 	 
	Vivian Vitale, SVP Human Resources
#### In the Matter of Gregory D., Respondent, v Athena Q., Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 516]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan M. Doherty, Ref.), entered on or about February 25, 2016, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for modification of a custody order and awarded him sole custody of the parties’ three children, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the petition denied, and sole custody awarded to respondent mother.

The Referee’s determination awarding custody to petitioner father lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]) since the mother has been the children’s primary caretaker and, sole source of financial support, for the majority of the children’s lives *(see e.g. Matter of Laura A.K. v Timothy*M., 204 AD2d 325 [2d Dept 1994]). During the approximately two-year period, from 2011 through 2013, the father scarcely visited or spoke with the children, while the mother had enrolled them in a charter school and extracurricular activities, including dance and karate, and the children were thriving in her care. The mother moved the family into an apartment in Manhattan, and was in the process of changing schools to remedy the issue of the children’s tardiness due to their long commute.

The mother’s past poor judgment and misconduct which led to a neglect finding against her in 2013 after being the victim of domestic violence, and subsequent relocation of the children, understandably evoked the court’s concern *(see Matter of*
      *543
      *Tonisha J. v Paul P.,*55 AD3d 386, 387 [1st Dept 2008]). However, the record reflects that the mother has complied with all of the court’s directives in an effort to regain custody of the children, who were in the father’s care. The mother has spent significant time with the children, and continues to take them to their medical appointments and pay for their dental and eye care. The mother has maintained a spacious and suitable home for the children, in contrast to the overcrowded conditions at the father’s home. The mother has also pursued higher education, found employment and dedicated herself to planning for her and the children’s future *(id.).*

Further, it is the children’s clear preference to reside with the mother *(Melissa C.D. v Rene I.D.,*117 AD3d 407, 407-408 [1st Dept 2014]). We note that the Referee also dismissed the observations and conclusions of the neutral, court-appointed evaluator, regarding, inter alia, the parties’ respective interactions with the children, but credited the testimony of the two experts who had never met the mother or evaluated her parenting ability *(see Matter of Rebecca B.,*204 AD2d 57 [1st Dept 1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 808 [1994]).

Thus, on balance, it is in the children’s best interest to remain with the mother, and custody should be awarded to her *(see Tonisha J. v Paul P.,*55 AD3d at 388).

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00123

- CV

Blanca HERNANDEZ

, Appellant

v.

T EXAS D EPARTMENT OF I NSURANCE , WORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION D IVISION

,

and Rod Bordelon Jr. in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Workers’ Compensation, Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas Trial Court No. 12

- 12

- 28082

- MCV Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

We order that appellees the Texas Department of Insurance, Workers’ Compensation Division, and Rod Bordelon Jr., recover their co sts of this appeal, if any, from appellant Blanca Hernandez.

SIGNED July 30, 2014.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Letter Agreement between the Company and David A. Levin



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

			
	Date:	  	May 26, 2006
	To:	  	David A. Levin
		  	President and CEO
	From:	  	CMRG Compensation Committee

 David: 
 This confirms your bonus for business year 2005. The results achieved yielded a 75% bonus against a target of $600,000 or $450,000. Congratulations on a great performance. At the April 24th meeting of the Board, the committee also recommended to the Board, and the Board authorized, that you should receive 200,000
options in recognition of your efforts during the 2005 business year, with an option price equal to the closing price of the Company’s common stock on April 24, 2006. 
 As to the current year, business year 2006, we are raising your salary to $750,000 effective as of May 1, 2006. 
 Your targeted base bonus for business year 2006 will be $750,000 and will be performance based. The sole metric will be EBITDA (before extraordinary items). The
illustrative table below shows EBITDA and bonus amounts in round numbers. The actual bonus will be calculated from real EBITDA dollar amounts. 
 The following table illustrates the parameters of the plan: 
  

					
	 EBITDA
	  	Bonus %	  	Bonus $
	 *
	  	0	  	0
	 *
	  	80	  	600,000
	 *
	  	85	  	637,500
	 *
	  	90	  	675,000
	 *
	  	95	  	712,500
	 *
	  	100	  	750,000
	 *
	  	105	  	787,500
	 *
	  	110	  	825,000
	 *
	  	115	  	862,500
	 *
	  	120	  	900,000
	 *
	  	125	  	937,500
	 *
	  	130	  	975,000
	 *
	  	135	  	1,012,500
	 *
	  	140	  	1,050,000
	 *
	  	145	  	1,087,500
	 *
	  	150	  	1,125,000

 The bonus is capped at 150% of your target. That is, any EBITDA in excess of *MM will still earn the maximum bonus
of $1,125,000. 







 * [As supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Frequently Asked Questions dated November 23, 2004
(Question 13), and consistent with the treatment of similar information under Instruction 2 to Item 402(k) of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has excluded information relating to target levels with respect to specific quantitative or qualitative
performance – related factors, or factors or criteria involving confidential commercial or business information, the disclosure of which would have an adverse effect on the Registrant]. 
 For purposes of this 2006 Bonus Plan, the 2006 EBITDA shall include only those CMRG operations that existed in 2005. For example, if the Company acquires another
business in 2006, EBITDA generated from that business shall be excluded for purposes of this 2006 Bonus Plan. 
 Eligibility: 
 As has been our custom, to be eligible for the bonus, you must be actively employed at the end of the fiscal year and at the
time of the bonus distribution. 
 Kindest Regards, 
 Compensation Committee: 
  

					
	 /s/ JESSE H. CHOPER
	 		 	 /s/ GEORGE T. PORTER, JR.

	Jesse H. Choper	 		 	George T. Porter, Jr.