alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Torrence ALLEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7421.

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. Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari;

*1232I dissent for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States,* 586 U.S.----, --- S.Ct. ----, ---L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
| i.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ii.   | The      information contained in the Report fully presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the    Report. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      14, 2010 | By:      /s/ Jon Thompson                  |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|              | Jon      Thompson                          |
|              | Chief      Executive Officer and President |
|              |                                       |
| May      14, 2010 | By:      /s/ Shannon L.  Greene            |
|              | Shannon      L. Greene                     |
|              | Chief      Financial Officer and Treasurer |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREVOR REED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. J. Frederick Motz, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-cr-00353-M-1; 5:14-cv-00502-M)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevor Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan 

Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Trevor Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal of 

his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and the 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to

reconsider that judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-

85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Reed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michael BENNEFIELD, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 18-8638.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Alejandro PARRA-RAMOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5397.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

No. 18-5287.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          65,042
<SECURITIES>                                    25,580
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,193
<PP&E>                                          25,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           690
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,370
<SALES>                                         17,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,088
<CGS>                                              547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (7)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,388)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
Ronald Raymond FOWLKES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5134.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/11/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      154,210
COMMITMENTS
  16,933   30,260   37,136   85,213   73,219  139,282  140,615   14,928   13,595

CHANGES FROM 10/04/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,315)
  -1,390    5,624     -219    8,746    5,427    7,137   10,832      178   -3,517

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.0     19.6     24.1     55.3     47.5     90.3     91.2      9.7      8.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       96)
      29       27       42       24       26       78       82
```

----

Updated October 14, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7625

RICKY WAYNE BOBLETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE; PATRICK GURNEY; DANIEL MAHON;

WARDEN, DWCC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-71-R)

Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 21, 1996

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Wayne Boblett, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Boblett v. Angelone, No. CA-95-71-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 5, 1995).

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000909992
<NAME> THE BEARD COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2468
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (72)
<INVENTORY>                                        998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4158
<PP&E>                                           17239
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8416)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                        8229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15419
<SALES>                                           2918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4122
<CGS>                                             2025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (424)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2452 MELEY MILLER, a/k/a Meley Ghirmay, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-711-409) Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Meley Miller, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitions for review of a final order of the Board must be filed no later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). The Board’s order is dated October 20, 2004. Thus Miller’s petition for review was due to be filed by November 19, 2004. As Miller filed the petition for review on November 22, 2004, we find that her petition is untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
H. R. 1665

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition to the

Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by law, by purchase

or exchange as well as by donation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD, VIRGINIA.

(a) REMOVAL OF CONDITION ON BATTLEFIELD ADDITION.—

Section 2(a)(2) of Public Law 102–541 (16 U.S.C. 425k note; 106

Stat. 3565) is amended by striking ‘‘: Provided,’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘Interior’’.

(b) AUTHORIZED METHODS OF ACQUISITION.—

(1) LIMITATIONS ON ACQUISITION METHODS.—Section 3(a)

of Public Law 101–214 (16 U.S.C. 425l(a)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘(1)

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(2) The lands designated ‘P04–04’ on the map referred to

in section 2(a) numbered 326–40072E/89/A and dated September

1990 may be acquired only by donation, and the lands designated

‘P04–01’, ‘P04–02’, and ‘P04–03’ on such map may be acquired

only by donation, purchase from willing sellers, or exchange.’’.

(2) REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION OF ADDITION.—Section 2 of Public Law 102–541 (16 U.S.C. 425k note;

106 Stat. 3565) is amended by striking subsection (b).
H. R. 1665—2

(c) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 2(a) of Public Law 101–

214 (16 U.S.C. 425k(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘Spotslyvania’’ and

inserting ‘‘Spotsylvania’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
William James TRUESDALE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA, et al.

No. 18-8462.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1Certification     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), Stephen S.Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of Asyst Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), and Richard H.Janney, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:     1. The Company’s Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2006, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated: October 13, 2006         /S/ STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ   /S/ RICHARD H. JANNEY     Stephen S. Schwartz, Ph.D.   Richard H. JanneyChief Executive Officer   Interim Chief Financial OfficerThis certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification isnot deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates itby reference.
EXHIBIT
13.1




CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION







Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officers of Technicolor, a French company (the
“Company”), hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that the Company’s
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.







Dated: April 6,
2010




By:
              /s/ Frederic
      RoseName:
              Frederic
      RoseTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer
   By:
              /s/ Stéphane
      RougeotName:
              Stéphane
      RougeotTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer
```

```

----

Updated February 18, 2011
H. R. 1663

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To recognize National Medal of Honor sites in California, Indiana, and South

Carolina.

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 ‘‘National Medal of Honor

Memorial Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration

which the Nation bestows.

(2) The Medal of Honor is the only military decoration

given in the name of Congress, and therefore on behalf of

the people of the United States.

(3) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society was established by an Act of Congress in 1958, and continues to protect,

uphold, and preserve the dignity, honor, and name of the Medal

of Honor and of the individual recipients of the Medal of Honor.

(4) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society is composed

solely of recipients of the Medal of Honor.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SITES.

(a) RECOGNITION.—The following sites to honor recipients of

the Medal of Honor are hereby recognized as National Medal of

Honor sites:

(1) RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.—The memorial under construction at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California, to be dedicated on November 5, 1999.

(2) INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—The memorial at the White

River State Park in Indianapolis, Indiana, dedicated on May

28, 1999.

(3) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The Congressional

Medal of Honor Museum at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant,

South Carolina, currently situated on the ex-U.S.S. Yorktown

(CV–6).
H. R. 1663—2

(b) INTERPRETATION.—This section shall not be construed to

require or permit Federal funds (other than any provided for as

of the date of the enactment of this Act) to be expended for any

purpose related to the sites recognized in subsection (a).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Bruce Wayne HARRISON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9060.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Bankrate, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statement (No. 333-87955) on Form S-8 of Bankrate, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Bankrate, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2006, which reports appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Bankrate, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (R), *Share-BasedPayment*, effective January 1, 2006. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

March 17, 2008 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

Certified Public Accountants
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1315 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1315

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to eliminate 
 the fiscal year limitation on the cap on the percentage of community 
 development block grant funds received by the City and County of Los 
Angeles, California, that may be used to provide public services and to 
  provide that all communities in the County of Los Angeles receiving 
 such block grant funds may use the same percentage of such amounts to 
     provide public services as the City and County of Los Angeles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1999

  Mr. Dreier introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to eliminate 
 the fiscal year limitation on the cap on the percentage of community 
 development block grant funds received by the City and County of Los 
Angeles, California, that may be used to provide public services and to 
  provide that all communities in the County of Los Angeles receiving 
 such block grant funds may use the same percentage of such amounts to 
     provide public services as the City and County of Los Angeles.

    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 ``Public Services Flexibility Act''.

SEC. 2. PUBLIC SERVICES CAP.

    Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``in each of fiscal 
years 1993'' and all that follows through ``unit of general local 
government'' and inserting the following: ``in any fiscal year to the 
City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, or any other unit of 
general local government located in the County of Los Angeles, such 
city, such county, or each such unit of general local government, 
respectively,''.
                                 <all>
```
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/05/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      498,075
COMMITMENTS
  63,372   15,199  109,856  298,086  348,758  471,315  473,813   26,761   24,262

CHANGES FROM 06/28/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,076)
   7,276   -2,029   -1,996   -1,435    5,108    3,845    1,083   -1,769      992

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    12.7      3.1     22.1     59.8     70.0     94.6     95.1      5.4      4.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      140)
      48       16       54       67       65      133      122
```

----

Updated July 8, 2011