alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         | 143,848 | 140,775 | 144,419 | 148,639 | 147,968 | 143,731 | 143,795 | 150,768 | 152,236
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 151,978 | 149,496 | 141,181 | 145,353 | 153,204 | NA      | 156,403 | NA      | 160,361 | 169,960
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 173,070 | 170,994 | 178,068 | 178,593 | 186,126 | 185,255 | 182,079 | 175,896 | 172,521 | 168,174
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 164,748 | 163,066 | 169,146 | 168,314 | 168,347 | 178,448 | 179,055 | 182,111 | 184,284 | 186,408
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 174,168 | 177,264 | 178,112 | 175,692 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification - CEO



CERTIFICATION



I, Marcus New, CEO, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Stockgroup Information Systems Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)

presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correction actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  March 9, 2004





/s/  Marcus New



Marcus New

Chief Executive Officer
1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

KEVIN JEROME JONES, § 

TDCJ No. 1169005, § 

 § 

Petitioner, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1307-N 

§ 

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, ET AL., § 

§ 

Respondents. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. An objection was filed by Petitioner. The District Court 

reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the 

Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge. 

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court 

adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has 

Case 3:22-cv-01307-N-BN Document 7 Filed 07/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
2 

failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition 

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this 

Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000).1

But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the $505 

appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Petitioner’s 

Motion for Leave to Amend is denied as futile. 

SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2022. 

____________________________________ 

DAVID C. GODBEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on 

December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before 

entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a 

certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue 

or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a 

certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of 

appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does 

not extend the time to appeal. 

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time 

to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if 

the district court issues a certificate of appealability. 

Case 3:22-cv-01307-N-BN Document 7 Filed 07/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 1:22-CR-054-01-H

APRIL DAWN SPARKMAN,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GI]ILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magisrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636OX1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated october (l ,2022

J WESL YHENDRIX

D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 71 Filed 10/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 122
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         650,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  969,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (15,655)
<INVENTORY>                                    192,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,897,491
<PP&E>                                       2,645,919
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,675,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,898,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,646,769
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,517
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,158,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,898,575
<SALES>                                      1,619,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,619,265
<CGS>                                          920,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,455,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,852)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,876
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            142,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,326
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
Exhibit 8  List of Principal Subsidiaries Of Gruma, S.A. de C.V.   Subsidiary
  Jurisdiction of IncorporationGrupo
  Industrial Maseca, S.A. de C.V. (GIMSA)
  MexicoMolinera
  de México, S.A. de C.V. (Molinera de México)
  MexicoProductos
  y Distribuidora Azteca, S.A. de C.V. (PRODISA)
  MexicoGruma
  Corporation
  Nevada, United StatesAzteca
  Milling LP
  Texas, United StatesGruma
  Centroamérica, LLC
  Nevada, United StatesMolinos
  Nacionales, C.A. (MONACA) (MONACA)
  VenezuelaDerivados
  de Maíz Seleccionado, DEMASECA, C.A. (DEMASECA)
  VenezuelaInvestigación
  de Tecnología Avanzada, S.A. de C.V.
  Mexico
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                          30,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    184,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               425,672
<PP&E>                                         390,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (47,255)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 861,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,807
<BONDS>                                        201,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           346
<OTHER-SE>                                     360,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   861,224
<SALES>                                        435,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               435,690
<CGS>                                          316,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  412,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,527)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,607
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,929
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,678
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,678
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
<FN>
<F1>REFLECTS BASIC EPS
</FN>


</TABLE>
**CH** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0 584 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. MICHAEL JACOB DUNNE ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including January 28 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 19 2022

12/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0584
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40445

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LENNOARD RAY HARE, also known as Leo, also known as Griz,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-277

 USDC No. 4:12-CR-97-1

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lennoard Ray Hare, federal prisoner # 43938-177, moves for a certificate 

of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that 

challenged his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent 

to distribute cocaine and marijuana. He also seeks to appeal the disposition of 

his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

* 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

July 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40445 Document: 00515500892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2020
No. 19-40445

2

Hare asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to 

suppress evidence found as a result of a traffic stop of a car in which he was a 

passenger. He maintains that the stop was impermissibly prolonged after the 

purpose of the stop was resolved and that the continuation of the stop to permit

a K-9 unit to sweep the car was improper. Hare argues that the introduction 

of the evidence attributable to the illegal search was prejudicial. 

A COA may issue if a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 327 (2003). If, as in this case, the district court denied relief on the 

merits, a prisoner must show that jurists of reason could debate the district 

court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues asserted were 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

Hare has not made the required showing. Accordingly, his motion for a 

COA is denied.

We treat his motion for a COA regarding the district court’s denial of an 

evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue. See Norman v. Stephens, 

817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). He has failed to show that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

See United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435, 442 (5th Cir. 2008). The 

judgment of the district court is affirmed as to that issue. See Norman, 817 

F.3d at 234.

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40445 Document: 00515500892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2020
# Q1

&[31	

# Q2

&[32	

# Q3

&[33	

# Q4

&[34	

# Q5

&[35	

# Q6

&[36	

# Q7

&[37	

# Q8

&[38	

# Q9A&B

&[39	

# Q9C

&[40	

# Q9D&E

&[41	

# Q9F

&[42	

# Q9G&H

&[43	

# Q10

&[44	

# Q11

&[45	

# Q12

&[46	

# Q14

&[47	

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|U.S. Refinery Aromatics Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|U.S. Refinery Aromatics Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 231,705 | 237,042 | 218,476 | 214,551 | 275,858 | 286,659 | 288,559 | 289,547
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 290,444 | 292,314 | 290,495 | 286,425 | 278,325 | 284,675 | NA      | 287,657 | NA      | 302,000
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 315,124 | 318,024 | 312,760 | 315,700 | 322,400 | 318,250 | 319,250 | 305,870 | 285,470 | 298,620
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 270,820 | 297,311 | 296,911 | 317,511 | 296,511 | 316,411 | 323,275 | 324,475 | 323,781 | 331,976
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 331,976 | 327,156 | 311,656 | 290,956 | 348,556 |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE WILFONG WITHERSPOON, a/k/a Spookie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-91-35, CA-94-118-5-MU)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Wilfong Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church,

Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Witherspoon, Nos. CR-91-35; CA-94-118-5-MU

(W.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 1998). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 65

U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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