alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/16/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      252,066
COMMITMENTS
  78,209    7,896   48,751   93,572  161,177  220,532  217,825   31,535   34,242

CHANGES FROM 11/09/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -10,461)
  -7,961      574     -144    4,044   -5,383   -4,061   -4,952   -6,400   -5,508

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    31.0      3.1     19.3     37.1     63.9     87.5     86.4     12.5     13.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      236)
      75       31       79       70      103      181      195
```

----

Updated November 19, 2010
EXHIBIT 10.17

                              NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE

APPLICANT: Fu- Lin, ZHOU

The application submitted on August 20, 1995 to obtain patent of invention named
'LINER RUBBER ABSORBER CUSHION' satisfies requirements of patent application.
According to section twenty-eight of the Patent Act and section thirty-nine in
Details and Regulations of the Patent Act, this application has been accepted.
The application number and application date are assigned as followings :



APPLICATION NUMBER :          95 2 20019.8
APPLICATION DATE   :          950820

FEE : 1 - 80% Reduced


Explanation in Brief:

This notice is a proof indicating that the Department of Patent of China has
accepted the applicant's application for a patent.

The Application number is the file number assigned by the Department of Patent
of China. Nine digits or characters compose the application number. The third
digit counting from the left represents the type of the application. Digit "1"
stands for invention; Digit "2" stands for practical new model type; Digit
"3"stands for apparent design. If the applicant finds that the application
number does not correctly stands for his/her application type, he/she should ask
the Department of Patent to make correction within 15 days from the date when
this notice is received by the applicant.

According to the twenty-eighth regulation stated in the Patent Act, if the
application is submitted by mail, the date of the postmark on the application
documents is assigned as the application date. If the applicant finds the
application date assigned different from the mailing date, he/ she can ask the
Department of Patent to change the application date provided with proof of the
mail register within one month from the date when this notice is received by the
applicant.

This notice has very important instructions printed on the back. It is the
applicants' responsibilities to read those instructions carefully.
Nathan Daniel KNUTH, petitioner, v. Randall C. ARP, Judge, District Court for the First Judicial District of Colorado, et al.

No. 18-7164.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.38

                     ADDENDUM TO LEASES DATED AUGUST 8, 1991
                BETWEEN MONTBELL ASSOCIATES now known as MONTBELL
                      ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., as LANDLORD, and
                            H-POWER CORP., as TENANT.

            IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto that:

            (A) So long as the Tenant is not in default under any of the terms
and conditions of the above mentioned lease, the Tenant and Landlord agree to
modify the terms and conditions of the lease as set forth in Schedule "A" below.

All other terms and conditions of the Lease except as expressly provided for
herein shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

                                 SCHEDULE "A"
                                RENTAL SCHEDULE

         DATE                      ANNUALLY                     MONTHLY
08/01/96 TO 07/31/97              $58,250.00                   $4,687.50
08/01/97 TO 07/31/98              $58,250.00                   $4,687.50
08/01/98 TO 07/31/99              $58,250.00                   $4,687.50


                                OPTION TO RENEW

      So long as the Tenant is not in default under any of the terms and
conditions of this Lease, the Tenant may extend this Addendum for an additional
two (2) year period at the rentals set forth in Schedule "B" below. Tenant must
notify Landlord of its intention to so renew in writing, certified mail, return
receipt requested, during the 30th month of this Addendum.

All other terms and conditions of the Lease except as expressly provided for
herein shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

<PAGE>

                                 SCHEDULE "B"
                                RENTAL SCHEDULE

         DATE                      ANNUALLY                     MONTHLY
08/01/99 TO 07/31/00              $58,250.00                   $4,687.50
08/01/00 TO 07/31/01              $58,250.00                   $4,687.50


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and
seals or caused these presents to be signed by their proper corporate officers.

DATED: April 4, 1996


Witness:

                                          /s/ Robert H. Koch
-----------------------------             ------------------------------
As To Landlord                            Montbell Associates, L.L.C.
                                              Landlord



                                          /s/ R. C. Cope
-----------------------------             ------------------------------
As to Tenant                              H-Power Corp.
                                              Tenant
* 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

November 15, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40230

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ROMAN-HERNANDEZ, also known as Filemon Roman-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-811

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Roman-Hernandez (Roman) appeals the sentence he

received for illegally reentering the United States after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Roman argues that

this court should vacate his sentence and remand his case for

resentencing because the district court failed to indicate that

it considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when

it imposed its sentence, as he believes is required by United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Roman’s argument is

unavailing. Because Roman’s sentence was within a properly
No. 06-40230

-2-

calculated guidelines range, this court infers that the district

court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in

the Guidelines. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554

(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). 

Roman also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Roman’s 

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Roman argues

that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a

majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in

light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on

the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United

States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Roman properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review.

AFFIRMED.
Asia JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Christopher WYLIE, et al.

No. 18-6928.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 428 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 428

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 29, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and 
   Analysis to develop and disseminate a threat assessment regarding 
                   terrorist use of virtual currency.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Security Assessment of 
Terrorists' Use of Virtual Currencies Act''.

SEC. 2. THREAT ASSESSMENT ON TERRORIST USE OF VIRTUAL CURRENCY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for 
Intelligence and Analysis, as authorized by section 201(b)(1) of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121(b)(1)), shall, in 
coordination with appropriate Federal partners, develop and disseminate 
a threat assessment regarding the actual and potential threat posed by 
individuals using virtual currency to carry out activities in 
furtherance of an act of terrorism, including the provision of material 
support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. Consistent 
with the protection of classified and confidential unclassified 
information, the Under Secretary shall share the threat assessment 
developed under this section with State, local, and tribal law 
enforcement officials, including officials who operate within State, 
local, and regional fusion centers through the Department of Homeland 
Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative 
established in section 210A of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
U.S.C. 124h).
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``foreign terrorist organization'' means an 
        organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization 
        under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
        U.S.C. 1189).
            (2) The term ``virtual currency'' means a digital 
        representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, 
        a unit of account, or a store of value.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Corporation; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 9, 2009 | By:    | /s/  | B.      Keith Johnson              |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |      | B.      Keith Johnson              |   |
|                        |   |      | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|                        |   |      |                               |   |
| Date:      November 9, 2009 | By:    | /s/  | Steven      M. Zagar               |   |
|                        |   |      | Steven      M. Zagar               |   |
|                        |   |      | Chief      Financial Officer & |   |
|                        |   |      | Principal      Accounting Officer  |   |

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XATA Corporation;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(s) 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)) for the registrant and 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; and
  (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.
  /s/ Mark E. Ties  Mark E. Ties  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of XATA Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge: 1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the
Report.



         /s/ Craig S. Fawcett
-------------------------------------------------
Craig S. Fawcett, Chief Executive Officer


Dated: February 14, 2003
Wescley Fonseca PEREIRA, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-459.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 12, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        OF CEO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
  **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**
  **SARBANES-OXLEY
        ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TheStreet.com, Inc. (the
        “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Clarke,
        Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Thomas
                J.
                Clarke, Jr.Thomas
                  J. Clarke, Jr.
                Chairman
                  of the Board and
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
                March
                  14, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 195

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Eldrey Marchone Lane, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20220164

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam. 

Ashlei A. Neufeld, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff 

and appellee; submitted on brief.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

NOVEMBER 10, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Lane

No. 20220164

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Eldrey Marchone Lane appeals from a criminal judgment entered after 

a jury convicted him of driving under suspension. Lane argues the evidence 

presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude sufficient 

evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor 

of conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 10, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ESTAC L. LOVE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-5126 (D.C. No. 99-CR-012-TCK-FHM) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , O’BRIEN , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his “Motion for Reversal of Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651,” in which he sought coram nobis relief. He challenged sentences imposed in 2000 for violation-2- of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), arguing that the sentences violated Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He also argued that the total term of incarceration imposed of 146 years constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The district court concluded that the defendant could not challenge his sentences through a petition for a writ of coram nobis. We affirm. “As courts have explained, a prisoner may not challenge a sentence or conviction for which he is currently in custody through a writ of coram nobis.” United States v. Torres , 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002). On appeal, the defendant argues that the district court erroneously reached its decision on constitutional grounds rather than statutory grounds, and that § 924(c) creates a separate offense and is not a sentencing factor. Because the defendant is still in custody and is challenging the sentences he is currently serving, the district court did not err in denying relief. AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
Abasi Akeem SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7147.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Daniel P. CANNON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7239.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Joanna Joy BLAUCH, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 18-798.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Motion to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Colorado, Adams County denied.