alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               851,145
<PP&E>                                         401,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                 256,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,263,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,937,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,032,300
<COMMON>                                        44,582
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,289,793)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,263,819
<SALES>                                        779,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               779,528
<CGS>                                          692,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  692,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,089,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             613,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,615,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,615,389)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,615,389)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.18)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

SOLOMON EVERFIELD, JR. (1) 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 1:23-CR-00023-MJT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate 

Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty 

Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommended that the 

court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further recommended that the court adjudge the 

Defendant guilty on Counts One and Eight of the Superseding Indictment filed against the 

Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea 

agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Solomon Everfield (1), is 

Case 1:23-cr-00023-MJT Document 85 Filed 02/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 307
adjudged guilty as to Counts One and Eight of the Superseding Indictment charging a violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine 

“Actual” and Fentanyl)) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited 

Person).

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 29th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cr-00023-MJT Document 85 Filed 02/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 308
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1800

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 25, 2000

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994 to ensure that certain information regarding

prisoners is reported to the Attorney General.

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

HR 1800 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Death in Custody Re3 porting Act of 2000’’.

4 SEC. 2. REPORTING OF INFORMATION.

5 Section 20104(a) of the Violent Crime Control and

6 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13704(a)) is

7 amended—

8 (1) in paragraph (1)—

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(1)’’; and

10 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)

11 and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;

12 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(2)’’ and in13 serting ‘‘(B)’’;

14 (3) in paragraph (3)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(C)’’;

16 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)

17 and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; and

18 (C) by striking the period and inserting ‘‘;

19 and’’; and

20 (4) by adding at the end the following new

21 paragraph:

22 ‘‘(2) such State has provided assurances that it

23 will follow guidelines established by the Attorney

24 General in reporting, on a quarterly basis, informa25 tion regarding the death of any person who is in the

26 process of arrest, is en route to be incarcerated, or
3

HR 1800 RFS

1 is incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, State

2 prison, or other local or State correctional facility

3 (including any juvenile facility) that, at a minimum,

4 includes—

5 ‘‘(A) the name, gender, race, ethnicity, and

6 age of the deceased;

7 ‘‘(B) the date, time, and location of death;

8 and

9 ‘‘(C) a brief description of the cir10 cumstances surrounding the death.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/03/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      412,326
COMMITMENTS
  37,285   43,275   87,873  266,808  266,175  391,966  397,323   20,360   15,003

CHANGES FROM 03/27/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,248)
  -9,592    1,418      461   13,543    3,285    4,412    5,164      836       84

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     9.0     10.5     21.3     64.7     64.6     95.1     96.4      4.9      3.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      130)
      27       29       39       68       61      119      108
```

----

Updated April 6, 2012
Jason C. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-9349.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
James PAINE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9213.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Gregory D. KILPATRICK, petitioner, v. David WEISS.

No. 18-5906.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

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

Calendar No. 51

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 171

[Report No. 106–24]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

MARCH 17, 1999

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail

Route in New Jersey, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 Section 6 of Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244

5 note) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking

7 ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,000,000’’; and
2

HR 171 RS

1 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘five’’ and in2 serting ‘‘10’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 23,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 51

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 171

[Report No. 106–24]

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritpurposes. age Trail Route in New Jersey, and for other

MARCH 17, 1999

Reported without amendment
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 02-3103

___________________________

Andrew Sasser

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

___________________________

No. 11-3346

___________________________

Andrew Sasser

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana

____________
 Submitted: December 13, 2013

 Filed: February 26, 2014

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

The State of Arkansas’s petition for panel rehearing is predicated on a

misreading of our opinion and a mischaracterization of the record. It should be clear

the district court, on remand, must consider whether “[Andrew] Sasser’s state

postconviction counsel fail[ed] to raise the[] four [potentially meritorious]

ineffectiveness claims.” Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833, 853 (8th Cir. 2013). It

should equally be clear that Sasser’s “postconviction counsel’s alleged

ineffectiveness” will excuse procedural default only “if proved.” Id. (emphasis

added). Far from determining Sasser has affirmatively overcome the procedural bar,

our opinion recognizes we cannot presently determine whether these four claims

remain procedurally barred in light of Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct.

1911 (2013). 

Our opinion therefore vacates the procedural default determination and

remands for the district court to decide the two-part Trevino question in the first

instance, after giving Sasser an opportunity to present evidence in support of his

argument the four claims are no longer procedurally barred. This hearing will

necessarily address the underlying merits of the four claims because, unless

postconviction counsel’s failure to raise a claim was prejudicial, the claim remains

procedurally barred despite Trevino. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

687 (1984). On remand, the State is free to argue Sasser’s postconviction counsel

fully raised the four claims, see Arnold v. Dormire, 675 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir.

-2-
2012), just as Sasser is free (1) to argue the State forfeited this argument or is

estopped from relying upon it, and (2) to show substantial and decisive factual

differences between these four claims and the purportedly similar postconviction

claims emphasized by the State.

Because we do not consider it appropriate in this capital case to decide such

fact-intensive questions for the first time on appeal, we deny the State’s petition for

rehearing by the panel.

_____________________________

-3-
Gary L. PENNINGTON, petitioner, v. Michael CLARK, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

No. 18-5865.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District denied.
Maurice McLAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5309.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
William OWENS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-7038.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1915

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To provide grants to the States to improve the reporting

of unidentified and missing persons.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Jennifer’s Law’’.
2

HR 1915 RFS

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

2 The Attorney General is authorized to provide grant

3 awards to States to enable States to improve the reporting

4 of unidentified and missing persons.

5 SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY.

6 (a) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant

7 award under this Act, a State shall submit an application

8 at such time and in such form as the Attorney General

9 may reasonably require.

10 (b) CONTENTS.—Each such application shall include

11 assurances that the State shall, to the greatest extent

12 possible—

13 (1) report to the National Crime Information

14 Center and when possible, to law enforcement au15 thorities throughout the State regarding every de16 ceased unidentified person, regardless of age, found

17 in the State’s jurisdiction;

18 (2) enter a complete profile of such unidentified

19 person in compliance with the guidelines established

20 by the Department of Justice for the National

21 Crime Information Center Missing and Unidentified

22 Persons File, including dental records, x-rays, and

23 fingerprints, if available;

24 (3) enter the National Crime Information Cen25 ter number or other appropriate number assigned to
3

HR 1915 RFS

1 the unidentified person on the death certificate of

2 each such unidentified person; and

3 (4) retain all such records pertaining to uniden4 tified persons until a person is identified.

5 SEC. 4. USES OF FUNDS.

6 A State that receives a grant award under this Act

7 may use such funds received to establish or expand pro8 grams developed to improve the reporting of unidentified

9 persons in accordance with the assurances provided in the

10 application submitted pursuant to section 3(b).

11 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

12 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

13 this Act $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001,

14 and 2002.

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMED ABDULKADIR

MOHAMED,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 2003

Agency No.

A071

- 714

- 251

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 12, 2023 **

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mohamed Abdulkadir Mohamed , a native and citizen of Somalia , petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* 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). Mohamed’s request for oral

argument is denied. 

# FILED

SEP 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 2003

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.

Najmabadi v. Hold

er , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for

review.

T he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohamed’s motion to

reopen as untimely, where it was filed over sixteen months after the final removal

order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7 )(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within

ninety days of final removal order), and petitioner has not established that

equitable tolling of the filing deadline is warranted, see Avagyan v. Holder , 646

F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (deadline may be equ itably tolled when petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, and petitioner acts with

due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

T he temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate

issues. The supplemen ted motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/12/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       73,698
COMMITMENTS
  16,889      353    5,050   51,759   68,295   73,698   73,698        0        0

CHANGES FROM 06/05/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:          .)
       .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    22.9      0.5      6.9     70.2     92.7    100.0    100.0      0.0      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       4        4        4       10       11       15       18
```

----

Updated June 15, 2012
Norman Mearle GRIM, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-5518.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied. Justice THOMAS, concurring in the denial of certiorari: I concur for the reasons set out in *Reynolds v. Florida,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 27, ---L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Reynolds v. Florida,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 27, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Michael FELIX, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 18-253.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department denied.
Anthony GRIFFIN, et al., petitioners, v. HESS CORPORATION, aka Amerada Petroleum Corporation, et al.

No. 17-7885.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
slgd-ex1020_469.htm



Exhibit 10.20

 

AGREEMENT TO VARY A CONTRACT

 

This Agreement is dated March 18, 2019 and made between:

 


	
 
	
(1)
	
MONTAGNE JEUNESSE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED of The Green Barn, Astral Court, Central Avenue, Baglan Energy Park, Wales SA12 7AX





	
 
	
(2)
	
NEOTERIC COSMETICS INC of 4880 Havana Street, Suite 400, PO Box 39-S, Denver, Colorado 80239, USA




 

(together the “Parties”)

 

Background:


	
 
	
A.
	
The Parties are party to an Exclusive Distribution Agreement with an Effective date of September 15, 2014 and made between the Parties, as amended by further agreements dated April 1, 2015 and September 5, 2017 (the “Agreement”).





	
 
	
B.
	
The Parties wish to extend the termination date specified within the Agreement so that they have time to explore a new agreement which will replace the Agreement.





	
 
	
C.
	
Consequently, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as set out in this variation agreement with effect from March 14, 2019 (“Variation Date”).




 

Agreed Terms:


	
 
	
1.
	
In consideration of the mutual promises set out in this agreement, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as set out below.





	
 
	
2.
	
With effect from the Variation Date the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:





	
 
	
a.
	
The word "six" in the fifth line of Clause 2.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the word "three.”




 

Governing law and jurisdiction:


	
 
	
3.
	
This variation agreement and any dispute or claim (including non-contractual disputes or claims) arising out of or in connection with it or its subject matter or formation shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the law of England and Wales.





	
 
	
4.
	
The parties irrevocably agree that the courts of England and Wales have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim (including non-contractual disputes or claims) that arises out of, or in connection with, this variation agreement or its subject matter or formation.




 








 



 


			
			
	
Signed by 

DAVID LAWRENCE

for and on behalf of 

MONTAGNE JEUNESSE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 

 
	
 
	
 

/s/ David Lawrence

Director

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 

	
Signed by 

MARK GOLDSTEIN 

for and on behalf of 

NEOTERIC COSMETICS INC.
	
 
	
 

/s/ Mark Goldstein

President and Chief Executive Officer




 

2
INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE, et al., petitioners, v. Christopher M. SULYMA.

No. 18-1116.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/11/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       44,410
COMMITMENTS
  10,375    1,533      554   23,275   32,544   34,204   34,631   10,206    9,779

CHANGES FROM 12/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,100)
     169      253     -194    1,767    1,187    1,742    1,246      358      854

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    23.4      3.5      1.2     52.4     73.3     77.0     78.0     23.0     22.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       51)
      15        1        5       27       24       44       29
```

----

Updated December 14, 2012
Ella N. LIGGINS, petitioner, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

No. 17-8072.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.