alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1959 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1959

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard 
  in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training 
                               Center''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1959

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard 
  in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training 
                               Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard in San 
Antonio, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Adrian A. Spears 
Judicial Training Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Adrian A. Spears 
Judicial Training Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Juan Francisco MEDINA ORTIZ, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-6197.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# Uradni list C 59/2022

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 59 |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Letnik 654. februar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 59

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Letnik 654. februar 2022

---

| Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacije |
| | INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE |
| | Evropska komisija |
| 2022/C 59/01 | Menjalni tečaji eura — 3. februar 2022 | 1 |

Vsebina

Stran

IV   Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropska komisija

2022/C 59/01

Menjalni tečaji eura — 3. februar 2022

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

IV Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropska komisija

| 4.2.2022 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 59/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2022

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 59/1

---

Menjalni tečaji eura (1)

3. februar 2022

(2022/C 59/01)

1 euro =

| | Valuta | Menjalni tečaj |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | ameriški dolar | 1,1286 |
| JPY | japonski jen | 129,63 |
| DKK | danska krona | 7,4388 |
| GBP | funt šterling | 0,83208 |
| SEK | švedska krona | 10,3870 |
| CHF | švicarski frank | 1,0407 |
| ISK | islandska krona | 142,40 |
| NOK | norveška krona | 9,9545 |
| BGN | lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | češka krona | 24,135 |
| HUF | madžarski forint | 353,94 |
| PLN | poljski zlot | 4,5315 |
| RON | romunski leu | 4,9461 |
| TRY | turška lira | 15,3047 |
| AUD | avstralski dolar | 1,5849 |
| CAD | kanadski dolar | 1,4334 |
| HKD | hongkonški dolar | 8,7966 |
| NZD | novozelandski dolar | 1,7001 |
| SGD | singapurski dolar | 1,5212 |
| KRW | južnokorejski won | 1 358,42 |
| ZAR | južnoafriški rand | 17,2864 |
| CNY | kitajski juan | 7,1795 |
| HRK | hrvaška kuna | 7,5295 |
| IDR | indonezijska rupija | 16 243,28 |
| MYR | malezijski ringit | 4,7215 |
| PHP | filipinski peso | 57,608 |
| RUB | ruski rubelj | 86,1788 |
| THB | tajski bat | 37,424 |
| BRL | brazilski real | 5,9843 |
| MXN | mehiški peso | 23,2359 |
| INR | indijska rupija | 84,5180 |

Valuta

Menjalni tečaj

USD

ameriški dolar

1,1286

JPY

japonski jen

129,63

DKK

danska krona

7,4388

GBP

funt šterling

0,83208

SEK

švedska krona

10,3870

CHF

švicarski frank

1,0407

ISK

islandska krona

142,40

NOK

norveška krona

9,9545

BGN

lev

1,9558

CZK

češka krona

24,135

HUF

madžarski forint

353,94

PLN

poljski zlot

4,5315

RON

romunski leu

4,9461

TRY

turška lira

15,3047

AUD

avstralski dolar

1,5849

CAD

kanadski dolar

1,4334

HKD

hongkonški dolar

8,7966

NZD

novozelandski dolar

1,7001

SGD

singapurski dolar

1,5212

KRW

južnokorejski won

1 358,42

ZAR

južnoafriški rand

17,2864

CNY

kitajski juan

7,1795

HRK

hrvaška kuna

7,5295

IDR

indonezijska rupija

16 243,28

MYR

malezijski ringit

4,7215

PHP

filipinski peso

57,608

RUB

ruski rubelj

86,1788

THB

tajski bat

37,424

BRL

brazilski real

5,9843

MXN

mehiški peso

23,2359

INR

indijska rupija

84,5180

---

(1)  Vir: referenčni menjalni tečaj, ki ga objavlja ECB.

---
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/23/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       42,328
COMMITMENTS
   9,173    1,783    1,396   19,904   28,829   30,473   32,008   11,855   10,320

CHANGES FROM 10/16/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,438)
      36      -66      217   -2,546   -2,003   -2,293   -1,852      855      414

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    21.7      4.2      3.3     47.0     68.1     72.0     75.6     28.0     24.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       52)
      17        3        8       24       21       43       31
```

----

Updated October 26, 2012
Christopher Lee DUCKET, petitioner, v. Robert MARSH, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Benner Township, et al.

No. 17-8723.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DAVID KING, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-75

§

TEXAS DEP’T CRIM. JUST., et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff David King, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Wainwright Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro

se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requested leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. 

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

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. 

The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge. The magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed

objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and

the applicable law. See FED.R.CIV. P. 72(b). The magistrate judge’s recommendation was based

Case 9:23-cv-00075-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 110
on Plaintiff’s statement, made under penalty of perjury, that he owns a United States bond valued

at approximately $100,000,000.00. In his objections, Plaintiff requests the Court to make

arrangements for payment of the filing fee with the Secretary of Treasury. Plaintiff is responsible

for making arrangements for paying the filing fee, not the Court. Therefore, after careful

consideration of all the pleadings and the relevant case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s

objections lack merit.

ORDER 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections (#8) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#5)

is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#2) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty days of this order. Plaintiff’s failure to pay

the filing fee may result in this action being dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

2

Case 9:23-cv-00075-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 111
Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., petitioners v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al.

No. 18-588.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari in No. 18-587 granted. Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment in No. 18-588 and No. 18-589 granted. The case is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/10/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       53,618
COMMITMENTS
   4,160    3,579       37   44,239   47,554   48,436   51,170    5,182    2,448

CHANGES FROM 04/03/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,864)
    -717      840       37    2,249      729    1,569    1,606      295      258

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     7.8      6.7      0.1     82.5     88.7     90.3     95.4      9.7      4.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       60)
       4        6        1       30       31       35       37
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/10/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       83,728
COMMITMENTS
  15,780    5,573      670   56,327   73,389   72,777   79,632   10,951    4,096

CHANGES FROM 04/03/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -975)
  -1,046   -1,353      447     -186     -229     -785   -1,135     -190      160

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    18.8      6.7      0.8     67.3     87.7     86.9     95.1     13.1      4.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       95)
      22       10        3       42       38       65       50
```

----

Updated April 13, 2012
Giezi Magno ZAMORA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5046.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 171 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        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.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 6 of Public Law 100-515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$4,000,000''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``five'' and inserting 
        ``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 Heritage Trail Route in New 
                    Jersey, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 17, 1999

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2037

In Re: ELDRIDGE HARMON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-1814-8)

Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eldridge Harmon, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eldridge Harmon has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to challenge the district court’s order transferring his

action to the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

(1994). The proper cause of action to challenge the transfer is

for Harmon to file a motion in the District Court for the District

of Columbia and to transfer the case to the Maryland district

court, and appeal to any adverse ruling to the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals once the district court enters a final order.

Because Harmon has failed to demonstrate a clear and undisputable right to relief, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35-36

(1980) (per curiam); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.

1987). 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 DENIED
Martin Louis BALLARD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5291.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Globalwise Investments,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Kendall D. Gill, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.





|Dated: April 30, 2013    | 
|------------------------ | 
|                         | 
|/s/ Kendall D. Gill      | 
|                         | 
|Chief  Financial Officer |
Stanley Bruce ROBERSON, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-8974.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District denied.
In Re Deborah Elizabeth GOUCH-ONASSIS, petitioner.

No. 18-5455.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Tiberiu KLEIN, et al., petitioners, v. Daniel O'BRIEN, et al.

No. 18-79.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Francisco QUINTERO-CORRAL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8807.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jerome Curtis GARRETT, petitioner, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General.

No. 18M27.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Dion Dakota JOHNSON, petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6232.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**          The undersigned, as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AlliedHoldings, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, which accompanies this certification fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and theinformation contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Allied Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for theperiods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.          This9th dayof December, 2005.         /s/ Thomas H. King         *Thomas H. King*    *Executive Vice President and*    *Chief Financial Officer*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto Allied Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Allied Holdings, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The information in this Exhibit 32.2 shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference inany filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specificreference in such filing.
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF John Edwin COOPER.

No. D-3037.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

John Edwin Cooper, of Erie, Pennsylvania, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show *449cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Milford Wade BYRD, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-5441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

LAURA PERRYMAN, 

 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STIMWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, 

INCORPORATED, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ No. 256, 2022 

§ 

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. 2019-1003 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: August 9, 2022 

 Decided: August 29, 2022 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

 After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On July 26, 2022, the pro se appellant, Laura Perryman, filed a notice 

of appeal from a letter order dated July 14, 2022, in which the Court of Chancery 

denied Perryman’s motion to lift a status quo order that had previously been entered 

in the case. The notice of appeal also identifies rulings made by the Court of 

Chancery during a telephonic hearing on May 4, 2022, when the court denied an 

earlier motion to lift and vacate the status quo order, and a hearing held in November 

2020. The July 14, 2022 order denying the motion to lift the status quo order states 
2

that on July 7, 2022, the court lifted a stay in the action and that “the matter shall 

proceed to trial.” 

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Perryman to show 

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme 

Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order. In response, 

Perryman contends that she complied with Rule 42 because she filed an application 

for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the Court of Chancery’s May 4, 2022 

ruling, and the Court of Chancery denied that application on June 9, 2022. Perryman 

asserts that she did not pursue an interlocutory appeal of the May 4, 2022 ruling 

because “the case was on stay,” instead moving to lift the stay and then filing a 

second motion to lift the status quo order. 

(3) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.1 Moreover, a notice 

of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.2 Although 

Perryman filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal from the 

Court of Chancery’s May 4, 2022 ruling, she decided not to file an interlocutory 

appeal at that time. And she did not file an application for certification of an 

interlocutory appeal from the July 14, 2022 order, or otherwise comply with the 

1 Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018). 

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3

procedural requirements of Rule 42 as to that order. Perryman’s failure to comply 

with Rule 42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal 

from the July 14, 2022 order, and her failure to file a timely notice of interlocutory 

appeal from the May 4, 2022 or November 2020 rulings leaves the court without 

jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from those rulings. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice