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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    101,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,454
<PP&E>                                          32,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,662
<SALES>                                        103,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,670
<CGS>                                           50,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,516
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (11)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
        

</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MESA RITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

HECTOR A. RIOS, Jr., Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-16940

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01035-LJO-GSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Rith appeals from the district court’s judgment of dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and we affirm.

FILED

APR 01 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Although Rith’s argument that he was entitled to bring a section 2241

petition was based on his contention that he was “actually innocent,” he did not

argue that he was actually innocent of the crime of conviction. His argument that

he was innocent of his career offender status for sentencing purposes is “not

cognizable as a claim of actual innocence.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1195

(9th Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 2013 WL 598706 (Feb. 19, 2013). He has not argued

that any of the exceptions to this rule recognized by our sister circuits apply here.

See Id. at 1194-95. Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding it had no

jurisdiction to hear the petition. Id. at 1195.

AFFIRMED.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

JASON ANDERSON, #02223281, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROL MONROE, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-292-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Jason Anderson, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings 

of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On December 7, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the 

Court dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution and Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with a Court order. Docket No. 14. A copy of this Report was sent 

to Plaintiff. However, no objections have been received. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

Case 6:23-cv-00292-JDK-KNM Document 16 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 82
2 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 14) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of 

prosecution and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7th February, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00292-JDK-KNM Document 16 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 83
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-87

'

AMANDA JEANE FERGUSON, '

'

Defendant. '

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 Count Four of the 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, Amanda Jeane Ferguson, is 

Case 1:23-cr-00087-MAC-ZJH Document 25 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 77
2

adjudged guilty as to Count Four of the Indictment charging a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 

841(a)(1) - Possession with the Intent to Distribute or Dispense Methamphetamine (Actual).

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 26th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cr-00087-MAC-ZJH Document 25 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 78
# United State s Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 11-1242, 11-1244, 11-1245 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. LEONEL DAVID MALDONADO-ESCARFULLERY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on August 20, 2012, is amended as follows: On page 4, line 13, the defendant's name is spelled "Maldonado-Escarfullery."
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/07/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      564,854
COMMITMENTS
  32,558   32,753  174,346  337,488  342,182  544,392  549,281   20,461   15,572

CHANGES FROM 07/31/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     26,696)
  -1,705    4,467   16,615    9,102    3,347   24,012   24,430    2,684    2,266

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     5.8      5.8     30.9     59.7     60.6     96.4     97.2      3.6      2.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      134)
      33       24       49       66       68      124      122
```

----

Updated August 10, 2012
In Re Danny HOWELL, petitioner.

No. 18-6632.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Martin Michael YBARRA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5435.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

*457Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of Texas

ROBROY INDUSTRIES TEXAS LLC

ABB INC. and ABB INSTALLATION PRODUCTS,

INC.

ABB Installation Products, Inc.

860 Ridge Lake Blvd.

Memphis, TN 38120

Kent E. Baldauf, Jr., Cecilia R. Dickson & Bryan P. Clark

THE WEBB LAW FIRM

One Gateway Center

420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd., Suite 1200

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

2:23-cv-00223

5/19/23

Case 2:23-cv-00223-JRG Document 3-1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 2:23-cv-00223-JRG Document 3-1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39
Jaiyanah BEY, petitioner, v. ELMWOOD PLACE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 18-6412.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**CL** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 4 - 0 409 WILLIAM CLARK,

Petitioner and Appellant , v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including October 4 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court September 3 2024

09/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0409
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 22, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 22, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A2402. DONALD BRIAN CHYBICKI, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF SANDRA KAY 

COTHERN CHYBICKI et al. v. ALFRED WALTER MAZUR et al.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31887-31888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11189]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely

[[Page 31888]]

related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless 
otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the 
United States.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question 
whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the 
BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than June 
8, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Erien O. Terry, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments 
can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#024372726e6b6163766b6d6c712c416d6f6f676c76714263766e2c6470602c6d7065"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="135263637f7a7072677a7c7d603d507c7e7e767d67605372677f3d7561713d7c6174">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida; through its 
subsidiary bank, Capital City Bank, Tallahassee, Florida, to indirectly 
acquire an equity interest in SOLCAP 2022-1 LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, and 
thereby engage in extending credit and servicing loans pursuant to 
section 225.28(b)(l) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-11189 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DESMOND MITCHELL, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1845

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 8, 2019. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Debra Johnes Riva, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group, Inc., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Affinity Group, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures, (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant, 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)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’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:  August 13, 2007 | /s/ Michael A.  Schneider             |   |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File No.333-2320 and File No. 333-127134), of the Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc. 1994 and 2003 Stock Option Plans, of our report, dated July 15, 2005, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc. as of June 30, 2005 and 2004,  and for the years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, which report appears is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. 

              /s/ *BKD, LLP*

St. Louis, Missouri
Ruben Dario URIBE-SANCHEZ, petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General.

No. 18-363.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Mohsen KHOSHMOOD, petitioner, v. DC HQ HOUSING AUTHORITY.

No. 18-6657.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
EMPIRE DISTRIBUTION INC., petitioner, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELEVISION, et al.

No. 17-1383.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 Certification
of Vice-Chairman, President and Co - Chief Executive 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/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 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:
 
 (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: May
27, 2005
 
 
 /s/ Peter
Hoetzinger
 _________________
 Peter
Hoetzinger
 Vice-Chairman,
President and Co - Chief Executive Officer