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:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|District of Columbia Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|District of Columbia 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,027  | 1,028  | 1,035 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,014  | 1,016  | 1,029  | 1,030  | 1,043  | 1,044  | 1,044  | 1,039  | 1,036  | 1,035 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,033  | 1,032  | 1,034  | 1,035  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
No. 09-10668.

#### Angela Moreno, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

562 U.S. 849, 131 S. Ct. 97,

178 L. Ed. 2d 61,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5903.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 23.
No. 10-5278.

#### Anne Gerard, Petitioner v. Parkland Plaza Veterinary Clinic (two judgments).

562 U.S. 913, 131 S. Ct. 270,

178 L. Ed. 2d 178,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7004.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, denied.

Same case below, 322 Wis. 2d 736, 778 N.W.2d 172 (first judgment); 323 Wis. 2d 278, 779 N.W.2d 725 (second judgment).
No. 09-10710.

#### Diane Deconti, Petitioner v. Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County, Florida, et al.

562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 100,

178 L. Ed. 2d 63,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5891.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 9 So. 3d 624.
Exhibit 4.1



 





Exhibit 4.1




AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 4 to Rights Agreement, dated as of December 2, 2004
(this “Amendment”), is entered into by and between Mylan Laboratories Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock Transfer & Trust
Company (the “Rights Agent”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent are party to that certain Rights
Agreement dated as of August 22, 1996, as amended as of November 8, 1999, as of
August 13, 2004 and as of September 8, 2004 (as so amended, the “Rights
Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved and adopted
this Amendment at a meeting of the directors duly called and held; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 27 thereof, the
parties desire to further amend the Rights Agreement as set forth in this
Amendment.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements
set forth herein and in the Rights Agreement, the parties hereto agree as
follows:



     1. The proviso in paragraph 1 of Amendment No. 3 to Rights Agreement is hereby
amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:



     “provided, however, that at 12:01 a.m. (New York time) on January 1,
2006, each such reference to 10% shall automatically revert to 15%.”



     2. The term “Agreement” as used in the Rights Agreement shall be deemed to
refer to the Rights Agreement as amended hereby.



     3. (a) The parties acknowledge and agree that this Amendment is an
integral part of the Rights Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision of the
Rights Agreement to the contrary, in the event of any conflict between this
Amendment and the Rights Agreement or any part of either of them, the terms of
this Amendment shall control.



         (b) Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the
Rights Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect and shall be
otherwise unaffected hereby.



         (c) The Right Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, sets forth the
entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof
and hereof.



         (d) This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed
in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without regard
to laws that might otherwise govern under applicable conflicts of laws
principles.



 









 





         (e) This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same
document.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment
to be duly executed and attested, all as of the day and year first above
written.

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Edward J. Borkowski
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Edward J. Borkowski 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Paula Caroppoli
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Paula Caroppoli 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President 	 
	 








2
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

 

The following is a list of all of the subsidiaries of CoBiz Financial Inc. and the names, other than their proper corporate names, under which they do business:

 

CoBiz Bank, a Colorado state-chartered bank owned 100% by CoBiz Financial Inc., doing business as Colorado Business Bank and Arizona Business Bank.

 

Western Real Estate Investors, Inc., a Colorado Corporation owned 100% by CoBiz Bank.

 

Financial Designs Ltd., a Colorado corporation owned 100% by CoBiz Financial Inc.

 

CoBiz Insurance, Inc., a Colorado corporation owned 100% by CoBiz Financial Inc.

 

CoBiz GMB, Inc., a Colorado corporation owned 100% by CoBiz Financial Inc. and the sole general partner of Green Manning & Bunch, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership.

 

CoBiz IM, Inc., a Colorado corporation owned 100% by CoBiz Financial Inc. and the sole member of CoBiz Investment Management, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company.

 

RMA Holdings, Inc., a Colorado corporation owned 100% by CoBiz Financial, Inc.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Nephra P., I and Others, Infants. John Lee P. et al., Appellants; Forestdale Inc. et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 91]

Orders (one for each child), Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2015, which, upon a determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondents’ parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that respondents permanently neglected the subject children is supported by clear and convincing evidence (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; [3] [g] [i]). The agency engaged in diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen respondents’ relationship with the children by, among other things, developing individualized plans tailored to fit their situation and needs, and providing referrals for, among other things, parenting skills, anger management, and individual counseling *(id.*§ 384-b [7] [f]; *Matter of Adam Mike M. [Jef*
      *643
      *frey M.],*104 AD3d 572, 573 [1st Dept 2013]). Despite these efforts, respondents only partially complied with the service plan and failed to benefit from the services offered, as they continue to deny responsibility for the conditions necessitating the children’s removal from their care (104 AD3d at 573; *see also Matter of Samantha C.,*305 AD2d 167, 168 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 508 [2003]).

Moreover, after respondents completed some services, they knowingly orchestrated the unauthorized removal of the children from the agency, setting off a week-long manhunt that only ended when the van they and the children were in was surrounded by police officers who had their guns drawn. Respondents embarked on this journey without the children’s medications, and the children reported that they did not have enough to eat, that they were forced to sleep in the van and to urinate in bottles, and that at least two of them were beaten. Respondents’ decision to subject the children to this harrowing ordeal and their inability to appreciate the traumatic effect it had on the children — as well as the father’s inability to spend even one week with the children without resorting to corporal punishment — constituted clear and convincing evidence that respondents did not benefit from services *(id.).*

The preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s determination that termination of respondents’ parental rights is in the best interests of the children, as the children have been in stable and loving foster homes for several years, all of their basic needs are being met and their foster parents want to adopt them *(Matter of Jayvon Nathaniel L. [Natasha A.],*70 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2010]). The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment *(id.).*

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
No. 10-5095.

#### Larry Flenoid, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 903, 131 S. Ct. 240,

178 L. Ed. 2d 160,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6122.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11404.

#### Shih-Liang Chen, Petitioner v. Township of Fairfield, New Jersey, et al.

562 U.S. 878, 131 S. Ct. 192,

178 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6954.

October 4, 2010.

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

*116Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 656.
Exhibit 31.1.  CERTIFICATION  I, Alan K. Allred, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report of Questar Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.    August 7, 2008 /s/Alan. K. Allred Alan K. Allred President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 09-11345.

#### John Paul Minarik, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 183,

178 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6587.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office, denied.

Same case below, 970 A.2d 473.
# Directly Delivery Fuels shines brightly in the Best-in-Class category

/ Published May 10, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
The Direct Delivery Fuels program is designated as "Best-in-Class" and is one of three business units in Defense Logistics Agency Energy that buys petroleum products for its customers. 

This coveted best-in-class designation is something we’re proud of, said DDF Director Jim Shillingford. It means that Direct Delivery Fuels has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget as the mandatory source for all Department of Defense and federal civilian agency fuel requirements greater than 10,000 gallons per year in the continental U.S. and 20,000 gallons per year outside the continental U.S. The business unit supplies commercial grade aviation, diesel, gasoline, and heating fuels directly to DoD and federal civilian agency customers through three major programs.

The Posts, Camps and Stations, or PC&S, program awards supply contracts primarily to local small business vendors who create their own supply chains to support contractual obligations. Most procurements require vendors to deliver fuel directly to the customer’s installation, building or fuel tank. In addition to supporting these routine day-to-day fuel requirements, DDF also awards and manages the FEMA contingency support contract. This contract provides the fuel that supports relief efforts during presidentially declared disasters. Over the years, this contract has provided fuel support for everything from hurricanes to ice storms, earthquakes, and wildfires. The current contract covers all 50 U.S. states as well as some U.S. territories. 

The Mobility Fuels Division is comprised of the Into-plane and Ships’ Bunkers programs. Into-plane contracts are held at more than 450 commercial airports around the world, providing DLA Energy customers access to commercial jet fuel. The Bunkers program has contracts in place at 109 commercial seaports around the world that provide access to marine gas oil for the U.S. fleet.

Direct Delivery Fuels is truly a whole of government fuel supplier. Its more than 700 long-term contracts contain over 7,000 contract line-item numbers and support the fuel requirements of the Department of Defense, and numerous federal civilian agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State, NASA, the U.S. Post Office, and the Veterans Administration at more than 2,700 locations globally. The average performance period of a DDF contract is 3 to 5 years, with nearly 90 percent of these contracts being awarded to a small business. Direct Delivery Fuels’ support to small businesses is the driving force behind DLA Energy’s ability to meet its small business goals.

This will be another busy year for the business unit, but Shillingford said the Direct Delivery Fuels team is proud to be supporting the warfighter and its whole of government partners both at home and abroad. 

*Read this story and more on the DLA Energy Industry Engagement webpage in the May issue of the Industry Connection newsletter.*
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31264-31265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


The Enhanced-Use Development of the VAMC Sioux Falls, SD

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of designation.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs is 
designating the Sioux Falls, SD, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center (VAMC) for an Enhanced-Use development. The Department intends 
to enter into a long-term lease of real property with the Children's 
Care Hospital and School (CCH&S). The CCH&S will construct and maintain 
a parking area on the site, and will, as consideration for the lease, 
provide specified facilities and services to the Department at no cost.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacob Gallun, Asset and Enterprise Development Office (189), Veterans 
Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20420, (202) 565-4307.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8161 et seq., specifically 
provides that the Secretary may enter into an Enhanced-Use lease, if 
the Secretary determines that at least part of the use of the property 
under the lease will be to provide appropriate space for an activity 
contributing to the mission of the Department; the least will not be 
inconsistent with and will not adversely affect the mission of the 
Department; and the lease will enhance the property. This project meets 
these requirements.


[[Page 31265]]


    Approved: May 27, 1998.
Togo D. West, Jr.,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15117 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Specialty Care Network, Inc. and Subsidiary
Computation of Per Share Earnings



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                For the Year    
                                                                    Ended        
                                                              December 31, 1996 
                                                              ----------------- 
<S>                                                                <C>      
Average shares outstanding ..................................      1,450,137

Net effect of convertible debentures ........................      2,020,900

Acquisition shares issued ...................................      7,659,115

Dividends paid to promoters --
using treasury stock method .................................        192,234

Stock sold to Tallahassee Orthopedic Clinic, P.A ............        100,000

Net effect of common stock
options -- based on the
treasury stock method using
initial public offering price ...............................        603,961
                                                                 -----------
Total weighted average number of
common shares and common share equivalents ..................     12,026,347
                                                                 ===========
Net loss ....................................................    $(1,771,383)
                                                                 ----------- 

Net loss per common share ...................................    $     (0.15)
                                                                 ===========
</TABLE>
#### People v Beauchamp (Angel)

App Div, 1st Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 85251(U) (Bronx)

denied 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41373

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADALUPE MARCO ANTONIO VILLARREAL-FUENTES, also known as

Guadalupe Marco Villarreal-Fuentes,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:06-CR-187-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Marco

Antonio Villarreal-Fuentes raises arguments that are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.