alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00686- CR The St at e of Te xa s, App e lla nt

v. Am y Elizabeth Schu lze, Appellee F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. 693,56 6, HO NORAB LE ELISAB ETH ASH LEA EARLE, JUDGE PRESI DING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N T h e State’s motion to dis miss thi s appea l is gra nted. SeeT e x. R. Ap p . P. 42.2(a) . The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Puryear Dismissed on St ate’ s Motion Filed: Nove mber 4, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/08/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       73,573
COMMITMENTS
     846    1,986   11,217   61,430   60,320   73,493   73,523       80       50

CHANGES FROM 11/01/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,404)
      91      245      974    1,512    1,393    2,577    2,612     -173     -208

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     1.1      2.7     15.2     83.5     82.0     99.9     99.9      0.1      0.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       21)
       3        5        5        7       11       12       20
```

----

Updated November 14, 2011
Exhibit 32.4








Certification of Chief Accounting Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:








(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 10, 2009








/s/ Ray Sienko


Ray Sienko


Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit 99.3


Certification of Chief Accounting Officer

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


     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Century  Casinos,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          the Company.




     Date:  October 29, 2002

     /s/ Larry Hannappel
     -----------------
     Larry Hannappel
     Chief Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7655

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT PETER RUSSELL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:91-cr-00056-AVB-1; 1:93-cv-01036-JCC)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Peter Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Peter Russell seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion to 

reopen judgment in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

proceedings, and a subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59 motion to alter or amend judgment and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(4) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Russell has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We further deny Russell’s motion to remand the case 
3

for an evidentiary hearing, and we dismiss as moot his motion to 

expedite our decision on that motion. 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.

DISMISSED
Larry J. KUSHNER, petitioner, v. Gurbir GREWAL, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

No. 18-5723.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Jessica COOKE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1260.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
E-2
                                   Exhibit 99






                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT






Board of Directors and Stockholders
WVS Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of WVS Financial
Corporation   and   subsidiary  as  of  September  30,  2000,  and  the  related
consolidated statement of income for the three-month periods ended September 30,
2000 and 1999, the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders' equity for
the three-month period ended September 30, 2000, and the statement of cash flows
for the three-month  periods ended September 30, 2000 and 1999.  These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the consolidated  balance sheet as of June 30, 2000, and the related
consolidated  statements  of income,  changes in  stockholders'  equity and cash
flows for the year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in our report dated
July  28,  2000 we  expressed  an  unqualified  opinion  on  those  consolidated
financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
------------------------
S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
November 9, 2000
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, et al., petitioners, v. Yali Acevedo FELICIANO, et al.

No. 18-921.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Emory Dickson ENEH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5879.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 6:23-cr-00056

United States of America

v.

Loren Edward Page

ORDER

This criminal action was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for administration of a guilty plea under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The magistrate judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued 

findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea. Doc. 10. The 

magistrate judge recommended that the court accept defendant’s 

guilty plea and adjudge defendant guilty on count one of the information. Id. at 2. Defendant waived his right to object to the magistrate judge’s findings. Id.

The court hereby accepts the findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court 

also accepts defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea 

agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with defendant’s guilty plea, the court finds defendant Loren Edward Page guilty of count one of the information, 

charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(5)(B) and (b)(2) – Possessing or Accessing Child Pornography. 

So ordered by the court on May 22, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cr-00056-JCB-JDL Document 12 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 27
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11
----------


                   MECKLERMEDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   -----------------------------------------

          STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
          ------------------------------------------------------------

                FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND 1995
                -----------------------------------------------

                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)
                   ----------------------------------------  



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       1996              1995
                                    ----------        ----------
                                                      
<S>                                 <C>               <C>
NET LOSS                              ($3,868)          ($1,275)
                                    ==========        ==========
 
 
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES
  OUTSTANDING                           8,422             7,306
                                    ==========        ==========
 
PRIMARY EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON
  SHARE                                ($0.46)           ($0.17)
                                    ==========        ==========
</TABLE>

                                      35
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-91222) of JDN Realty Corporation and the related Prospectus,
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22339) of JDN Realty Corporation
and the related Prospectus, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-90868)
pertaining to the JDN Realty Corporation Dividend Reinvestment and Stock
Purchase Plan and in the related Prospectus, the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-1848) pertaining to the JDN Realty Corporation 1993 Incentive Stock
Plan, the JDN Realty Corporation 1993 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan,
and the JDN Realty Corporation 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in the
related Prospectus of our report dated February 21, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedules of JDN Realty Corporation
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 1997
**TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO**

**2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

*Background*

 

TurboChef Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted its 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on October 29, 2003.  Under Section 4.1 of the Plan, the total number of shares of Common Stock of the Company available for grant of Awards under the Plan was six million (6,000,000) shares.  Effective April 1, 2004, the Company amended the Plan to increase the number of shares available for Award grants to ten million (10,000,000) shares.  The amended Plan was approved by stockholders of the Company on July 19, 2004.  Effective December 27, 2004, the Company effected a 1-for-3 reverse split of its outstanding shares, and the number of shares available for Award grants under the Plan adjusted pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Plan to 3,333,333 shares.  Under Section 13.1 of the Plan the Committee, defined in the Plan as the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board ofDirectors, is authorized at any time to amend the Plan.  The Company’s Board of Directors deemed it advisable that the number of shares available for grant of Awards be increased by an additional 2,000,000 shares, to a total of 5,333,333 shares, and by consent on June 6, 2005, the Board, including the members of the Compensation Committee, approved the amendment and recommended it for approval by the stockholders.  On July 19, 2005, the amendment was approved by the Company’s stockholders.

 

*Amendment*

 

The Plan, as amended, is further amended, effective July 19, 2005, by deleting the first sentence of Section 4.1 thereof and substituting in lieu thereof the following sentence:

 

*Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.4, effective July 19, 2005 the total number of Shares available for grant of Awards under the Plan shall be five million three hundred thirty three thousand three hundred thirty three (5,333,333) Shares, subject to Awards granted prior to the effective date, all of which may be granted as Incentive Stock Options.*

 

 

By authority of the Board of Directors

 

 

/s/ Dennis J. Stockwell

Dennis J. Stockwell

Secretary
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2049** 

CASEY LYNN JORDAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:14

- cv
- 03007

- RBH )

Submitted : February 16, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Patrick J

. McLaughlin , WUKELA LAW FIRM , Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. R

. Hawthorne Barrett , TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P

. A

. , Columbia, South Carolina; John S. Wilkerson, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Casey Lynn Jordan appeals the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment to Allstate Insurance Co mpany on her claims alleging bad faith ref usal to pay , bad faith
handling/adjusting her claim, and breach of contract. We have
reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’
briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Jordan v.

Allstate Ins. Co. , No. 4:14

- cv
- 03007

- RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HELSINN HEALTCARE S.A., petitioner, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al.

No. 17-1229.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ZACHARY L. MOYE §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-109

CHRISTOPHER NORSWORTHY, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Zachary L. Moye, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter was

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

 Procedural Background

The court previously entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order (doc. #3) directing Plaintiff to

either pay the filing fee or submit a properly certified Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

showing deposits into his inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Plaintiff was

given 20 days to comply with the court’s Order. He was subsequently granted an extension of time

to comply. The extension of time for complying with the Order has expired. However, Plaintiff has

failed to comply with the Order. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

Case 1:23-cv-00109-MJT-CLS Document 15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

43
By failing to comply with the Order described above, Plaintiff has failed to diligently

prosecute this lawsuit. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 3rd day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00109-MJT-CLS Document 15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

44
VIRGINIA URANIUM, INC., et al., petitioners, v. John WARREN, et al.

No. 16-1275.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Eduardo Pineiro PEREZ, et al., petitioners, v. BP, P.L.C., et al.

No. 18-59.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 on Form 10-KSB of First American
Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick A. Tilghman, Treasurer and Chief
Financial 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
   or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


3/30/05                 /s/ Patrick A. Tilghman

Date	                Patrick A. Tilghman,
       	                Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF AVIVA PETROLEUM INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                       315
<INVENTORY>                                        836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,512
<PP&E>                                          69,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,335
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,149)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,619
<SALES>                                          1,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,184
<CGS>                                            1,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (731)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
Ken GRYDER, petitioner, v. Laura RUDY, et al.

No. 18-9083.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.