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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000911167
<NAME>                        ARIEL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         683,222
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,754,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                   217,433
<INVENTORY>                                    4,251,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,457,056
<PP&E>                                         5,400,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,315,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,291,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,920,876
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,720,750
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,884,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,291,007
<SALES>                                        10,387,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,387,807
<CGS>                                          6,313,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,313,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,066,838
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             277,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,177,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,177,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,177,191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.54)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

HEATH ALLEN-JOE AUBREY

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00172

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge 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. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept 

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Counts One and Two of the Indictment.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

The Court hereby ADOPTS 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 Heath Allen-Joe 

Aubrey GUILTY of Counts One and Two of the Indictment, charging violations of Title 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) - Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) – Possession of a 

Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime.

Case 4:23-cr-00172-SDJ-AGD Document 33 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 81
Ricardo Deleon COLON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6711.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


             STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF FRIEDMAN'S INC.
                       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 Friedman's Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 28, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bradley J. Stinn, Chief
Executive 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,
based on my knowledge:

         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.


/s/ Bradley J. Stinn
-------------------------------
Bradley J. Stinn
Chief Executive Officer
February 11, 2003
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-23689) pertaining to the Super Vision
International, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-32007) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, as amended,
of our report dated February 13, 1998, with respect to the financial statements
of Super Vision International, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form
10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1997.





Ernst & Young LLP


Orlando, Florida
April 13, 1998
John A. BARBOSA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6366.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference in Registration Statement No.
333-55290 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 11, 2004 (which report expresses
an  unqualified  opinion  and  includes  an  explanatory paragraph relating to a
change  in  accounting  method),  included  in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Peet's  Coffee  &  Tea,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  December  28,  2003.



/s/  Deloitte  &  Touche  LLP



San  Francisco,  California

March  11,  2004



<PAGE>
Eliana SARMIENTO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6806.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Capital Contribution Agreement



 Exhibit 10.15 
 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
is made and entered into as of this 20th day of April, 2012, by and between (i) Red Bullet Racing Corporation (“Raceco”) and (ii) Golden Pegasus Racing Incorporated (“Golden Pegasus”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 
 1. Capital Contribution. Golden Pegasus is currently the sole shareholder of Raceco and in connection with the anticipated initial public offering (the “IPO”) of common shares of Raceco,
Golden Pegasus hereby agrees to pay any and all commissions and expense reimbursements paid to selling agents in connection with the IPO through an additional capital contribution to Raceco. No additional shares are to be issued in consideration for
any such additional capital contribution. Any such additional capital contribution will be paid no later than the closing date of the IPO. 
 2. Representations and Warranties of Golden Pegasus. Golden Pegasus represents and warrants to Raceco: 
 (a) Binding Obligation. This Capital Contribution Agreement is a valid, binding obligation of Golden Pegasus, enforceable in accordance with its terms; and 

(b) No Violation. The execution, delivery and performance of the Capital Contribution Agreement by Golden Pegasus do not violate
any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or agreements binding upon or affecting Golden Pegasus or this transaction; 
 3.
Representations and Warranties of Raceco. Raceco represents and warrants to Golden Pegasus that the execution, delivery and performance of this Capital Contribution Agreement by Raceco do not violate any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or
agreements binding upon or affecting Raceco or this transaction. 
 4. Governing Law. The Capital Contribution Agreement
was entered into and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been signed by Golden Pegasus and Raceco as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	 RED BULLET RACING

CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Lyle Strachan

	Name: Lyle Strachan
	Title:   Chief Financial Officer
	
	 GOLDEN PEGASUS RACING
 INCORPORATED

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Michael Rogers

	Name: Michael Rogers
	Title:   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT A

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT 

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 96-1 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 6499
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 31887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11190]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    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 standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these 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 23, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Holly A. Rieser, Manager) 
P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent 
electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5714383a3a32392324793627273b3e3436233e3839241724233b247931253579382530"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d695b9bbbbb3b8a2a5f8b7a6a6babfb5b7a2bfb9b8a596a5a2baa5f8b0a4b4f8b9a4b1">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. The McGehee Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, McGehee, 
Arkansas; to acquire additional voting shares of up to 35 percent of 
Southeast Financial Bankstock Corp., and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of McGehee Bank, both of McGehee, Arkansas.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Luna Parent, Inc., Sunnyvale, California; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring Lead Financial Group, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly acquire Lead Bank, both of Kansas City, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-11190 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>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1804 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1804

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a 
 memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to soldiers who 
  have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian 
      efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation is 
authorized to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of 
Columbia or its environs to honor members of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, 
humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert 
operations.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The Pyramid 
of Remembrance Foundation shall establish the memorial authorized by 
this Act in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 
1001, et seq.), except that section 3(c) of that Act shall not apply.

SEC. 2. FUNDS FOR MEMORIAL.

    (a) Use of Federal Funds Prohibited.--Except as provided by the 
Commemorative Works Act, no Federal funds may be used to pay any 
expense of the establishment of the memorial.
    (b) Deposit of Excess Funds.--If--
            (1) upon payment of all expenses of the establishment of 
        the memorial, including payment to the Treasury of the 
        maintenance and preservation amount required by section 8(b) of 
        the Commemorative Works Act; or
            (2) upon expiration of the authority for the memorial under 
        section 10(b) of the Commemorative Works Act,
there remains a balance of funds received for the establishment of the 
memorial, the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation shall transmit that 
balance to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the account 
provided for in section 8(b)(1) of the Commemorative Works Act.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For the purposes of this Act, the term ``the District of Columbia 
and its environs'' has the meaning given that term in section 2 of the 
Commemorative Works Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 24, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1804

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a 
 memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to soldiers who 
  have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian 
      efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations.
```
NO. 01-15-00411-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT HOUSTON, TEXAS 

### ExparteJulio J. Lebron OnAppeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020596 

### APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Julio J. Lebron, through Jonathan Landers, files this motion to dismiss his appeal. As the State of Texas notes in its reply briefing filed on this date the criminal case against Julio J. Lebron was dismissed on May 28, 2015, the day before his trial was to begin. Because the criminal case has been dismissed and Julio J. Lebron has been released from custody, he requests that his appeal be dismissed. Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure article 42.2 provides: (a) At any time before the appellate court's decision, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal upon the appellant's motion. The appellant and his or her attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss and file it in duplicate with the appellate clerk, who must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk. ACCEPTED 01-15-00411-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/1/2015 4:25:39 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKAppellant Lebron certifies that immediately below is my original signature affixed by my own hand:

Date: ' /;

## l~ots Respectfully submitted, g,Ml,a;tk/7**a&u~** e. Jonathan D. Landers State Bar No. 24070101 2817 W. TC Jester Blvd., Suite M Houston, Texas 77018 713-301-3153 (Phone) 713-685-5020 (FAX) Jlanders.law@gmaiI.com LAWYER FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of this motion to dismiss has been delivered to the Harris County District Attorney's Office on 06/01/2015 through thee-filing system.

Jonathan LandersNO. 01-15-00411-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT HOUSTON, TEXAS 

### ExparteJulio J. Lebron OnAppeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020596 

### ORDER Upon considering

### APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSIt is ordered GRANTED. Signed this __day of______ , 2015.

JUDGE PRESIDING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ASHLEY HAMBY, et al.

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

JAMES WILSON, et al.,

 Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Case No. 6:23-CV-249-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Asserting diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs Ashley Hamby and Ashley Webb

initiated this negligence lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their minor children. 

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge approved the settlement as 

to the minors and issued a Report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed with 

prejudice. Docket Nos. 83 and 84. No written objections have been filed to the Report. 

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),

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

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00249-JDK-KNM Document 85 Filed 11/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

1063
Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate 

Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her 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 Recommendation, 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. 84) as the findings of this Court. It is 

ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15th November, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00249-JDK-KNM Document 85 Filed 11/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

1064
Darrell Safi DONAT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8365.

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.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MARICEL FORTEZA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 

GROUP, LLC d/b/a AAP and AUTO 

SERVICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-401-ALM-KPJ

ORDER

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Maricel Forteza (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of settlement (the 

“Notice of Settlement”) (Dkt. 50), wherein Plaintiff represents that she has reached a “agreement 

in principle to resolve her claims” against Defendants Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC

d/b/a AAP and Auto Service Department, Palmer Administrative Services, Inc., and Sing for 

Service, LLC d/b/a MEPCO (collectively, “Defendants”). See Dkt. 50 at 1. According to Plaintiff, 

with this settlement, only Defendant US Dealer Services, Inc. d/b/a US Auto (“US Auto”)—which 

is currently in default—will remain in this litigation. See id. Thus, Plaintiff represents that she 

“intends to seek entry of default and move for a default judgment against [US Auto].” Id. Plaintiff 

further represents that the “settlement should be finalized within sixty (60) days, at which point

. . . Defendants and Plaintiff will stipulate to dismiss the suit with prejudice.” Id.

Upon consideration, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit to the Court all papers 

necessary for the resolution of the claims between them no later than August 2, 2024. If such 

papers are not received by the Court by the scheduled deadline, and if the parties have not requested 

an extension of the deadline, the Court may order the parties to appear at a hearing for the purpose 

Case 4:23-cv-00401-ALM-KPJ Document 51 Filed 06/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 291
2

of determining which party is responsible for the delay. Thereafter, the Court may enter such orders 

as are just and necessary to ensure prompt resolution of this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all deadlines and hearings set by the Scheduling Order 

(Dkt. 30) are hereby VACATED.

Case 4:23-cv-00401-ALM-KPJ Document 51 Filed 06/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 292
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/13/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      175,912
COMMITMENTS
  63,311   13,934   21,211   70,601  117,050  155,123  152,194   20,789   23,718

CHANGES FROM 11/06/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        297)
  -1,456       66    1,740   -1,922   -2,353   -1,638     -547    1,936      844

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    36.0      7.9     12.1     40.1     66.5     88.2     86.5     11.8     13.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      189)
      66       24       35       59       86      139      133
```

----

Updated November 16, 2012