alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/15/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      147,703
COMMITMENTS
  18,708   21,699   31,043   81,481   80,117  131,232  132,859   16,471   14,844

CHANGES FROM 11/08/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      9,617)
   1,020   -2,008      276    7,144   10,328    8,440    8,596    1,177    1,021

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    12.7     14.7     21.0     55.2     54.2     88.8     90.0     11.2     10.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       86)
      33       22       32       24       24       74       66
```

----

Updated November 18, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

              SCHEDULE REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

             (amounts in 000's, except share and per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Twelve Months      Inception to
                                             Ended December 31,   December 31,
                                             -------------------  ------------
                                               1999       1998        1997
                                             ---------  --------  ------------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>       <C>
Net income (loss)........................... $(183,698) $(28,847)   $ (1,440)
                                             =========  ========    ========
Weighted average common shares..............    90,765    24,379      21,734
Common equivalent shares:
  Dilutive stock options....................       --        --          --
  Dilutive warrants.........................       --        --          --
                                             ---------  --------    --------
Common and common equivalent shares.........    90,765    24,379      21,734
                                             =========  ========    ========
Earnings (loss) per common and common
 equivalent share........................... $   (2.02) $  (1.18)   $  (0.07)
                                             =========  ========    ========
</TABLE>
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/14/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      216,614
COMMITMENTS
  85,201    7,307   21,935   79,342  153,905  186,478  183,148   30,136   33,467

CHANGES FROM 09/07/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,098)
   4,914      -44    2,363   -2,080    3,237    5,197    5,556    1,901    1,542

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    39.3      3.4     10.1     36.6     71.1     86.1     84.6     13.9     15.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      217)
      80       26       48       58       90      153      154
```

----

Updated September 17, 2010
Jacob Ramie PRATT, petitioner, v. Timothy FILSON, Warden, et al.

No. 17-7027.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Johnny Madison WILLIAMS, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8324.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Christopher WHITMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7440.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, John J. Limbert, the President and Chief Executive Officer of NB&T Financial Group,
Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NB&T Financial Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-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 quarterly 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers 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.



|                     |  |  |  |                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John J. Limbert
|                     |  |  |  | John J. Limbert
Robert A. RUCHO, et al., appellants, v. COMMON CAUSE, et al.

No. 18-422.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2019.

Appellants' briefs on the merit is to be filed on or before Friday, February 8, 2019. Appellees' briefs on the merit are to be filed on or before Monday, March 4, 2019. Reply briefs on the merit are to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court. *Amicus curiae* briefs in support of appellants or in support of neither party are to be filed on or before Tuesday, February 12, 2019. *Amicus curiae* briefs in support of appellees are to be filed on or before Friday, March 8, 2019.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law. Notice of Termination of Receiverships
Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Termination date10181
Florida Community Bank
Immokalee
FL
05/01/202210423
Tennessee Commerce Bank
Franklin
TN
05/01/2022
 The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the 
                    ( print page 27148)
                    Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities. (Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on May 2, 2022. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2022-09700 Filed 5-5-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IBETH C. CORRAL, AKA Ibeth Christina Corral,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70985

Agency No. A095

- 343

- 778

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6 , 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges

.

Ibeth C. Corral, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen her

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denia l of a motion to reopen , and w e review de novo

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 70985

questions of law

. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in

part and grant in part the petition for review

.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as

untim ely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

- (3).

In reviewing the BIA’s decision not to reopen Corral’s proceedings sua

sponte, our jurisdiction is limited to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decision []

for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla , 840 F .3d at 588. It appears t he BIA

erred in conclud ing Corral was stat utorily ineligible for cancellation of removal

based on her failure to comply with her grant of voluntary departure , where her

prior peti tion for review would have automatically terminated her grant of

voluntary departure

. See Garfias

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 702 F.3d 504, 523

- 25 (9th

Cir. 2012) (recognizing that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) automatically terminates a grant

of voluntary departure whe n an alien files a petition for review); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1240.26(i) (stating “the penalties for failure to depart voluntarily

. . . shall not

apply to an alien who files a petition for review”). We remand for the BIA to

consider whether it erred as to Corral’s eligibility, and if so, to reassess Corral’s

request for sua sponte reopening

. See Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 588 (“If, upon exercise

of its jurisdiction, this court concludes that the Board relied on an incorrect legal

premise, it should remand to the BIA so it may exercise its authority against the

correct legal background.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).3 18

- 70985

The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part ;

REMANDED

.
# C_2018356EN.01000101.xml

| 4.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2017-2018 SESSION

Sittings of 13 to 16 November 2017

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 147, 26.4.2018
  .

TEXTS ADOPTED

Sittings of 29 and 30 November 2017

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 156, 3.5.2018
  .

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
<PAGE>   1


                      GLOBAL DATATEL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               Year Ended December 31,
                                                                         1 9 9 9                       1 9 9 8
                                                                         -------                       -------
Basic earnings:
<S>                                                                    <C>                           <C>
Net loss                                                               $( 2,655,752)                  $ (3,696,457)
                                                                       -------------                  ------------
Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding                                     22,352,926                      6,836,755
                                                                       -------------                  ------------
Net loss per share                                                     $       (.12)                  $       (.54)
                                                                       =============                  ============
Diluted earnings:

Net loss                                                               $ (2,655,752)                  $  (3696,457)
                                                                       -------------                  ------------
Shares:
 Weighted common shares outstanding                                      22,352,926                      6,836,755
 Employee stock options                                                          --                             --
 Other stock options                                                             --                             --
 Convertible note                                                                --                             --
                                                                       ------------                   ------------

Total weighted shares outstanding                                        22,352,926                      6,836,755
                                                                       ------------                   ------------
 Diluted net loss per common share                                     $       (.12)                  $       (.54)
                                                                       =============                  ============
</TABLE>

                                                                            F-24
A98A0636.

#### FLEMING v. THE STATE.

(536 SE2d 608)

Decided June 29, 2000.

*Patricia A. Buttaro,*for appellant.

*William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Randall K. Coggin, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Pope, Presiding Judge.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court in *Fleming v. State,*271 Ga. 587 (523 SE2d 315) (1999), our decision in *Fleming v. State,*233 Ga. App. 483 (504 SE2d 542) (1998), is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Johnson, C. J., Andrews, P. J., Blackburn, P. J., Smith, P. J., Ruffin and Eldridge, JJ, concur.*
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1487

AN ACT

To provide for public participation in the declaration of national monuments under the Act popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1487

AN ACT

To provide for public participation in the declaration of national monuments under the Act popularly known as

the Antiquities Act of 1906.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1487 EH

1 SECTION 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE DECLARATION

2 AND SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT OF NA3 TIONAL MONUMENTS.

4 Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225,

5 16 U.S.C. 431; popularly known as the Antiquities Act

6 of 1906), is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 2. That the’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘SEC. 2. (a) The’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(b)(1) To the extent consistent with the protection

11 of the historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric struc12 tures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest

13 located on the public lands to be designated, the President

14 shall—

15 ‘‘(A) solicit public participation and comment in

16 the development of a monument declaration; and

17 ‘‘(B) consult with the Governor and congres18 sional delegation of the State or territory in which

19 such lands are located, to the extent practicable, at

20 least 60 days prior to any national monument dec21 laration.

22 ‘‘(2) Before issuing a declaration under this section,

23 the President shall consider any information made avail24 able in the development of existing plans and programs

25 for the management of the lands in question, including

26 such public comments as may have been offered.
3

•HR 1487 EH

1 ‘‘(c) Any management plan for a national monument

2 developed subsequent to a declaration made under this

3 section shall comply with the procedural requirements of

4 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.’’.

5 SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

6 Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this

7 Act shall be construed to enlarge, diminish, or modify the

8 authority of the President to act to protect public lands

9 and resources.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
Robert L. BIANCHI, petitioner, v. Sean MEDEIROS, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk.

No. 18-8236.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Pedro Rafael CARABALLO-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6661.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Wessley J. GUNCHICK, petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

No. 18-8175.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Christopher Anthony MOUNTJOY, Jr., petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 18-952.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-51107 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus

Leobardo Rodriguez-Loaza,

Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-694-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Leobardo Rodriguez-Loaza appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). For the first time on appeal, Rodriguez- Loaza contends that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitu tional because it permits a sentence

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 30, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-51107 Document: 00516260550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022No. 21-51107

2 above the otherwise-applicable statutor y maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While Rodriguez-Loaza acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to pres erve it for possible Supreme Court review. In addition, Rodriguez-Loaz a has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition.
This court has held that subseque nt Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See United States v.
Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Rodriguez-Loaza is correct that his argument is forecl osed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Rodriguez-Loaza’s motion is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-51107 Document: 00516260550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, dated the date of
this Certification (the Report), I, Timothy L. Smith, the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report 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.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Timothy L. Smith                 
|                      |  | Timothy L. Smith                     
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



49
THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, INC., petitioner, v. Calvin TOELLNER, et al.

No. 18-1159.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

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