alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/20/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      363,883
COMMITMENTS
 100,800  115,343   39,668  192,260  175,687  332,728  330,698   31,155   33,185

CHANGES FROM 03/13/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     54,930)
  15,114   13,246    5,258   25,179   25,971   45,551   44,475    9,379   10,455

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    27.7     31.7     10.9     52.8     48.3     91.4     90.9      8.6      9.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      147)
      33       61       56       37       41      109      129
```

----

Updated March 23, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-CR-4-1 -JRG-RSP

§

CHRISTOPHER CHARLES CRAVER §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE=S REPORT AND 

FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

PURSUANT TO RULE 11 (c)(1)(C)

On this day, the Court considered the Findings of Fact and Recommendation of United 

States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne regarding defendant=s plea of guilty under the provisions of 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) to Count 2 of the Indictment charging defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. '

922(g)(1), felon in possession of a firearm. Having conducted a proceeding in the form and manner 

prescribed by FED. R. CRIM P. 11, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court accept the 

defendant=s guilty plea, reserving to the District Judge the option of rejecting the Plea Agreement 

if, after review of the presentence report, the agreed sentence is determined not to be the 

appropriate disposition of the case. The parties waived their right to file objections to the Findings 

of Fact and Recommendation. The Court is of the opinion that the Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation should be accepted. 

It is accordingly ORDERED that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge, filed on September 11, 2023, are hereby ADOPTED. 

It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to defendant=s plea agreement, the Court finds 

defendant GUILTY of Count 2 of the Indictment in the above-numbered cause, reserving to the 

District Judge the option of rejecting the Plea Agreement if, after review of the presentence report, 

Case 2:23-cr-00004-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 75
2

the agreed sentence is determined not to be the appropriate disposition of the case.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of October, 2023.

Case 2:23-cr-00004-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 76
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AffinityGroup, Inc., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Affinity Group, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures, (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:

 

(a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 9, 2008 | /s/ Thomas F. Wolfe       |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
|                   | Thomas F. Wolfe           |   |
|                   | Senior Vice President and |   |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer   |   |

 

----
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 Quarterly Report of HomeNet Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael W. Devine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael W. Devine
--------------------------
Michael W. Devine
Chief Financial Officer
December 13, 2004
Calvin Lyndale GADDY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, et al.

No. 18-9139.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Omar QAZI, petitioner, v. NEVADA, et al.

No. 18-6077.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I,Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity Group, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify as follows:

 

1.             This statement isprovided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2010 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.             The PeriodicReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.             The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of dates andfor the periods indicated therein.

 

 

Date:  August 13, 2010

 

 
|   | /s/  Michael A. Schneider              |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Michael  A. Schneider                  |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
William DIXON, petitioner, v. William LEE, Superintendent, Eastern New York Correctional Facility.

No. 18-5832.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3887

___________

Melvin Leroy Tyler; Kevin Bromwell; *

Duc Duong, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Marion V. Favazza, Clerk, Circuit *

Court of St. Louis City, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2007

Filed: December 3, 2007 

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmates Melvin Leroy Tyler, Kevin Bromwell, and Duc Duong appeal

following the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered appellants’

arguments, we find no basis for reversing the orders challenged on appeal.

Accordingly we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, although we modify the dismissal of the
-2-

supplemental state law claims to be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d

783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998). We also deny appellants’ pending motions. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       1000
<COMMON>                                         74150
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
CONESTOGA TRUST SERVICES, LLC, as Trustee of the Conestoga Settlement Trust, dated May, 1, 2010, petitioner, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.

No. 18-176.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Donald JONES, petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, et al.

No. 18-5501.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Larry Elliot KLAYMAN, petitioner, v. Stephanie Ann LUCK.

No. 18-181.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County denied.
Adarius HARPER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7613.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

Exhibit 99.2





Raymond Chabot Grant ThorntonLLPSuite 2000
National Bank Tower 600 De La Gauchetière Street West Montréal,
Québec H3B 4L8

Telephone: 514-878-2691 Fax: 514-878-2127 www.rcgt.com

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the use of our report dated June 13, 2008, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. as
of April 27, 2008 and April 29, 2007 and the consolidated statements of
earnings, comprehensive income, contributed surplus, retained earnings,
accumulated other comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended April 27, 2008, which report appears in this Annual
Report on Form 40-F.

**/s/ Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton****LLPRaymond Chabot Grant Thornton****LLP**

Chartered Accountants

Montreal. Canada June 13, 2008







Chartered Accountants
Member of Grant Thornton
International Ltd.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of IPC Holdings, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                               
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Dated: October 26, 2007 |  | /s/ John Weale                
|                        |  | Name: John R. Weale           
|                        |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report.
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, GregoryT. Donovan, do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Fund; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By: /s/ Gregory T. Donovan Gregory T. Donovan Senior Vice President of Accounting and FinanceCampbell & Company, Inc.General PartnerCampbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P.May 15, 2007  
E-3
Opinion issued August 4 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 6 - 0 0 35 1 - C R

——————————— KELVIN BENTON , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF T E XAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1 4 86410 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Kelvin Benton , pleaded guilty to the third

- degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicl e , which was enhanced to a second

- degree felony offense because he had one prior felony conviction
. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . §§ 12.42(a), 38.04 ( a )( 2 )( A ) (West Supp. 2015). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the State agreed to recommend that appellant’s punishment be assessed at f ifteen2

years’ confinement

. In accordance with the terms of his plea bargain with the State, t he trial court found appellant guilty and a ssessed his punis hment at f ifteen years’ confinement. See id. § 12.3 3 (a) (West Supp. 2015). The trial court certified that this was a plea

- bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Nevertheless, appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal in the trial court, contending, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2)(A), 26.2(a)(1). Appellant also filed pro se letter

- motions for the appointment of appellate counsel in this Court. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss the motions as moot. In a plea

- bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 44.02 (West Supp. 201 5 ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2 (d) ; see Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
. Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the notice of appeal and states that this is a plea

- bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal, and the trial
c ourt did not give its permission to appeal any matters. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 615. The clerk’s record, filed in this Court,3

support s the trial court’s certification. See Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 615. Because appellant ha s no right of appeal, we must dismiss th is appeal without further action
. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ( “A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.” )
. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2 (b).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KELVIN BROWN, a/k/a Doom , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 4:13

- cr - 00110

- RGD

- TEM

- 4; 4:17

- cv - 00072

- RGD )

Submitted : February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kelvin Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kelvin Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 denie s 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 independentl y reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED