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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          8,091
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                    5,474
<INVENTORY>                                        67
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,181
<PP&E>                                        102,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                180,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,172
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           46
<OTHER-SE>                                     36,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  180,939
<SALES>                                        19,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,303
<CGS>                                          11,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,347
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,327)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (993)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.29)
        


</TABLE>
Dejenay BECKWITH, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, et al.

No. 19-907

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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

Filed 10/10/ 22 Marriage of Jordan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Nevada)

----

In re the Marriage of CASSANDRA HELEN
LEHMAN and TIMOTHY LAWREN CE JORDAN. C094369

CASSANDRA HELEN LEHMAN JORDAN,

Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY LAWRENCE JORDAN,

Respondent. (Super. Ct. No. FL14011262)

Cassandra Helen Lehman Jordan , appellant appearing in pro. per. , appeals from a

judgment dissolving the parties ’ marriage . Appellant filed a 53

- page opening brief that is

rambling and irrelevant. Un tethered to the principles of law governing the trial court’s

ruling and the limited scope of appellate review, appellant does little m ore in her brief

than express frustration with the family law system, the trial court, and her now ex

husband

.2

In a challenge to a judgment, the trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct

and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presen ting legal authority and

analysis on each point made, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in

the record, else the argument may be deemed forfeited. ( Badie v. Bank of America

(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784

- 785; Guthrey v. State of California (1998)

63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115

- 1116; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999)

72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) It is the appellant’s responsibility to support claims of error

with citation and authority; we are not obligated to perform that functio n on the

appellant’s behalf and may treat the contentions as forfeited. ( Lewis v. County of

Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113; Badie

, at pp. 784

- 785.)

Appellant must present each point separately in the opening brief under an

appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to

be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing

Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4.) This is not a mere technical requirement;

it is essent ial to the appellate process. Appellants must “present their ca u se

systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining

the rule of law to apply may be advised .

. . of the exact question under consideration,

instead of be ing compelled to extricate it from the mass.” ( Landa v. Steinberg (1932)

126 Cal.App. 324, 325; accord, Opdyk

, at p. 1830, fn. 4.)

Appellant’s opening brief fails on all of these grounds. Under the circumstances,

she has forfeited her claims of error.3 D ISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

/s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/s/ HULL, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   733
<PP&E>                                             200
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            34350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         94150
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22933
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 27067
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   1000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (26067)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Rafael Angel RONDON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5808.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michael SMALL, petitioner, v. Cherry LINDAMOOD, Warden.

No. 18-6372.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-65-2-MAC

'

QUINTON EDWARD CROSS, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is a report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 

Christine L. Stetson regarding the Defendant’s competency for trial. The parties have not filed 

objections to the report. 

Having conducted an independent review, the court concludes that the Defendant is 

competent to stand trial because he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the 

proceedings against him and able to assist his attorney in his defense. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

on the Defendant’s competency to stand trial is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that the 

Defendant, Quinton Edward Cross, is competent. The speedy trial time shall be excluded from 

August 11, 2023, until the date of this order. 

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 22nd day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cr-00065-MAC-CLS Document 51 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 163
Exhibit 24
 POWERS OF ATTORNEY
 OLYMPIC STEEL, INC.
    OLYMPIC STEEL, INC.By:
    /s/ Richard T. MarabitoRichard T. Marabito, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer Directors and Officers
 /s/ Dirk A. Kempthorne
    
    /s/ Michael D. SiegalDirk A. Kempthorne, Director
    
    Michael D. Siegal, Chairman of the Board 
and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Arthur F. Anton
    
    /s/ David A. WolfortArthur F. Anton, Director
    
    David A. Wolfort, President, Chief
Operating Officer and Director/s/ Ralph M. Della Ratta, Jr.
    
    /s/ Richard T. MarabitoRalph M. Della Ratta, Jr., Director
    
    Richard T. Marabito, Chief Financial 
Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)/s/ James B. Meathe
    
    /s/ Howard L. GoldsteinJames B. Meathe, Director
    
    Howard L. Goldstein, Director
 66
<PAGE>

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                                 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is made 
and entered into this 10th day of September, 1998, by and between Atchison 
Casting Corporation, a Kansas corporation (the "Company"), and Hugh H. Aiken 
(the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment 
Agreement dated as of June 14, 1991, which was amended to extend the term of 
such agreement through June 14, 1998 (as amended, the "Employment 
Agreement"), relating to the employment of the Employee as the Chief 
Executive Officer of the Company; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire and agree to amend the 
Employment Agreement in the manner set forth in this Amendment;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants and other good and 
valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby 
acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1.   EXTENSION OF TERM OF EMPLOYMENT.  Section 1 of the Employment 
Agreement is deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced with the 
following:

          1.   TERM.  The Company shall employ the Employee for a
          term commencing upon the date of this Agreement and
          continuing through June 30, 2001.  This Agreement shall be
          considered renewed for a continuing three-year term on the
          30th of June of each year hereafter unless the Company or
          the Employee provides six months notice to the other party
          that such party intends to terminate this Agreement.  

     2.   EFFECTIVE DATE.  This Amendment shall be effective as of June 14,
     1998.  

     3.   GENERAL.  Except as expressly provided herein, the Employment 
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as modified hereby.      


<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the 
day and year first written above.

                                   ATCHISON CASTING CORPORATION

                                   By:  /s/ Kevin T. McDermed
                                        --------------------------------

                                   Name:   Kevin T. McDermed
                                        --------------------------------
                                   Title: V. P. & Treasurer
                                        --------------------------------


                                   /s/ Hugh H. Aiken
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   Hugh H. Aiken
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALVIN BERRIAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1181

[August 2, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-23080 CF10A.

Alvin Berrian, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Alvin E. WILLIAMS, et ux., petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al.

No. 18-425.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Rose J. SPANO, petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR.

No. 18-493.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert R. Bonczek, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/ ROBERT R. BONCZEK  
|Robert R. Bonczek      
|Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to Trimeris, Inc. and will be retained by Trimeris, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DESMOND TYRELL SMITH, 

#121780, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNKNOWN, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-43-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Desmond Tyrell Smith 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 March 12, 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. 4. A copy of this Report was sent to 

Plaintiff at the last known address. To date, 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-00043-JDK-KNM Document 6 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
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. 4) 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 24th April, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00043-JDK-KNM Document 6 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16
Lakhdeep DEOL, petitioner, v. Gary W. DEPRETA, et al.

No. 18-541.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Francisco REZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7061.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998       
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998       
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998 
          
<CASH>                                           622,672       
<SECURITIES>                                           0          
<RECEIVABLES>                                 35,445,205       
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,321,903       
<INVENTORY>                                   60,758,976       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             103,130,281       
<PP&E>                                        45,577,957       
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,958,900       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               190,666,341       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         44,093,727       
<BONDS>                                       50,868,347       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0       
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         155,430       
<OTHER-SE>                                    94,824,039       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 190,666,341       
<SALES>                                      226,779,631       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             226,779,631       
<CGS>                                        200,580,511       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                200,580,511       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              28,992,704       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,311,505       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (6,809,060)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (2,947,541)       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,494,791)        
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0       
<CHANGES>                                              0       
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,494,791)       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.31)              
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.31)       
                                                                         
                                             



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-79

'

MICHAEL JAMES WHITE (1), '

'

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 One of the Information

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, Michael James White, is 

Case 1:23-cr-00079-MAC-ZJH Document 18 Filed 08/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 66
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Information charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 

(Wire Fraud).

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 21st day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00079-MAC-ZJH Document 18 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 67
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/08/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      148,803
COMMITMENTS
  40,313   36,380   16,183   75,543   68,014  132,039  120,577   16,764   28,226

CHANGES FROM 05/01/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,003)
   2,910    1,976      149    1,959    3,531    5,018    5,656    1,985    1,347

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    27.1     24.4     10.9     50.8     45.7     88.7     81.0     11.3     19.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      168)
      44       48       33       59       59      120      124
```

----

Updated May 11, 2012