alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/28/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      153,116
COMMITMENTS
  53,906    8,875   14,718   64,364  105,523  132,987  129,115   20,128   24,001

CHANGES FROM 08/21/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -7,198)
     -44   -1,017   -1,037   -2,375   -3,071   -3,456   -5,125   -3,742   -2,073

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    35.2      5.8      9.6     42.0     68.9     86.9     84.3     13.1     15.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      183)
      64       22       37       65       78      148      124
```

----

Updated August 31, 2012
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2016

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as

of December 31, 1999.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 1999

Mr. GUTIERREZ (for himself and Ms. BROWN of Florida) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as of December 31, 1999.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION FOR ADVISORY

4 COMMITTEE ON MINORITY VETERANS.

5 Subsection (e) of section 554 of title 38, United

6 States Code, is repealed.

Æ
D.A. petitioner, v. D.P., II.

No. 18-487.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District denied.
Jose DE LA CRUZ, petitioner, v. Alan KAILER, et al.

No. 17-1553.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/08/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      410,526
COMMITMENTS
  77,051  160,231   70,417  235,166  153,416  382,634  384,064   27,892   26,462

CHANGES FROM 12/31/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     84,460)
  25,037   29,938    9,274   42,768   39,188   77,079   78,400    7,381    6,060

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    18.8     39.0     17.2     57.3     37.4     93.2     93.6      6.8      6.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      166)
      63       55       63       33       35      133      125
```

----

Updated January 15, 2013
EXHIBIT 21.1

FARO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                                             
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|Antares LDA                                |  | Antares, Portugal                           
|Cam2 SRL                                   |  | Rivoli, Italy                               
|FARO Benelux BV                            |  | Eindhoven, Netherlands                      
|FARO Business Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. |  | New Delhi, India                            
|FARO Cayman LP                             |  | Georgetown, Cayman Islands                  
|FARO Cayman Ltd                            |  | Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands                
|FARO Delaware Inc                          |  | Wilmington, Delaware, USA                   
|FARO Deutschland Holding GmbH              |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Europe KG                             |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO FHN Netherlands BV                    |  | Amsterdam, Netherlands                      
|FARO Japan Inc.                            |  | Aichi, Japan                                
|FARO Scanning AG                           |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Scanner Production GmbH               |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Shanghai Co, Ltd                      |  | Shanghai, China                             
|FARO Singapore PTE Ltd                     |  | Singapore, Singapore                        
|FARO Spain SL                              |  | Barcelona, Spain                            
|FARO Swiss Holding GmbH                    |  | Beringen, Switzerland                       
|FARO Swiss Manufacturing GmbH              |  | Beringen, Switzerland                       
|FAO Tech Polska                            |  | Poznan, Poland                              
|FARO Verwaltungs GmbH                      |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Technologies (Thailand) Ltd.          |  | Bangkok,Thailand                            
|Faro Laser Trackers                        |  | Kennett Square, PA USA                      
|3D Measurement Technologies, S de RL de CV |  | Col. Chapultec Morales Cd. De Mexico, Mexico
|FARO France                                |  | Röthenbach/Allgäu, France                   
|FARO UK                                    |  | Coventry, United Kingdom                    
|FARO Australia                             |  | Sydne\y, Australia
##### 



LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation
    
    Form 10-Q
 Exhibit 32
 LODGENET ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 LodgeNet.
 th
 /s/ Scott C. Petersen

Scott C. PetersenChief Executive Officer/s/ Gary H. Ritondaro

Gary H. RitondaroChief Financial Officer
 June 30, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, 

INC., AND SPRINT CORP.,

Defendants. 

 Civil Action No: 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

The undersigned attorney hereby enters an appearance as additional counsel of record for 

Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Corp. (“Defendants”), and certifies 

that he is authorized to receive service of all pleadings, notices, orders and other papers in the 

above-captioned matter on behalf of the above-named Defendants.

Robert Vincent 

Texas Bar No. 24056474 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100, Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 698-3281 

Facsimile: (214) 571-2921 

RVincent@gibsondunn.com 

JURY DEMANDED

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 214
Dated: November 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert Vincent

Robert Vincent 

Texas Bar No. 24056474 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 698-3281 

Facsimile: (214) 571-2921 

Email: RVincent@gibsondunn.com 

 Counsel for Defendants 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 215
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on November 2, 2023, to all counsel of record who are deemed to 

have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

 

/s/ Robert Vincent

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 11/02/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 216
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-80370), (Form S-8 No. 33-92252), (Form S-8 No. 333-29195),
(Form S-8 No. 333-39049), (Form S-8 No. 333-60881), (Form S-8 No. 333-79239) and
(Form S-8, No. 333-89637) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan of McNaughton
Apparel Group Inc. the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of McNaughton Apparel Group
Inc., the Executive Stock Option Plan of McNaughton Apparel Group Inc. the ME
Acquisition Corp. Bonus Plan for Senior Executives; and the McNaughton Apparel
Group Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the McNaughton Apparel Group Inc.
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors and the McNaughton Apparel Group
Inc. Option Bonus Plan for Senior Executives of JJ Acquisition Corp.,
respectively, of our report dated January 8, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of McNaughton Apparel Group Inc.
included in this Annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended November 4, 2000.


                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
January 30, 2001
Ernest William SINGLETON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7364

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

647 CAF 10-00514 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ZACHARY T.

----------------------------------- GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;

ALAN D.T., SR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MARY ANN BLIZNIK, CLARENCE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PAULA A. CAMPBELL, BATAVIA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

LINDA M. JONES, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATAVIA, FOR ZACHARY T.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered February 1, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, adjudged that the subject child is a neglected child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, adjudicated the child who is the subject of this proceeding to be a neglected child. We conclude that Family Court properly determined following a fact-finding hearing that the father neglected the child by failing to protect him from being sexually abused by his older brother and his cousin. The child’s older brother testified that the father was aware of their sexual activity but took no action to prevent it from continuing. That testimony was corroborated by sworn statements that the child made to a police investigator. Under the circumstances, the court properly concluded that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual abuse to which the child was subjected was “a consequence of the failure of the [father] . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” ( Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 368).
We reject the father’s contention that the court erred in determining that the child was derivatively neglected as a result of the father’s sexual abuse of his nephew, whose family shared a house with the father and his family during the relevant time period. We conclude that the father was the “functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting” with respect to his nephew ( Matter of Yolanda D ., 88 NY2d 790, 796), and that his nephew was therefore “the-2- 647 CAF 10-00514
legal responsibility of” the father within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (i).

Entered: June 17, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.3
STATE OF ALABAMA

COUNTY OF ____________

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
                               -----------------

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Bart Starr, Sr.,  a Director of
JUST FOR FEET, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do constitute and
appoint Harold Ruttenberg and Eric L. Tyra, and each of them, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, on my behalf and in
my stead pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (i) a Registration Statement
on Form S-8 to register additional shares for issuance pursuant to the Just For
Feet, Inc. 1997 Employee Incentive Plan; (ii) post-effective amendments to the
following Registration Statements: 33-80578, 33-96588, 333-06531, 333-28041,
333-96584, 333-26345 and 333-28039; and (iii) the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 30, 1999, and to file the same with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, together with all exhibits thereto and
other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my
stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Registration Statements
or Reports, incorporating such changes as the said attorneys-in-fact deem
appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or
their substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 5th day of
March, 1999.


                                     /s/ Bart Starr, Sr.
                                    -------------------------------
                                    Bart Starr, Sr.


                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
                                ---------------

     BEFORE me this 5th day of March, 1999, came Bart Starr, Sr., personally
known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power
of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.


                                     /s/ Leigh Anne Harrell
                                    -------------------------------
                                    NOTARY PUBLIC

                                    State of Alabama

                                    My Commission Expires:

                                             9/17/2001
                                    -------------------------------
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
LAMAR VALDEN SIMMONS , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0 763 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1987

- 0011 19 The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Lamar Valden Simmons , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 5-15-2018STATE v. SIMMONS Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Lamar Valden Simmons seeks review of the superior court ’ s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, f iled pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s sixth untimely, successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction reli ef. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
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 EMAK Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Roy Dar, Principal Accounting 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: 

 

(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/ Roy Dar                                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Roy Dar

Vice President, Controller

(Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

 

 

Dated: November 14, 2006
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/10/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       39,041
COMMITMENTS
   5,487    8,311      657   22,046   19,383   28,190   28,351   10,851   10,690

CHANGES FROM 09/03/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,545)
     556      136       34    5,715    5,750    6,305    5,920      240      625

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    14.1     21.3      1.7     56.5     49.6     72.2     72.6     27.8     27.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       69)
       8       17        5       39       25       51       44
```

----

Updated September 13, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

§

DANIEL MILLER §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB 

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

Defendant. §

§ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Daniel Miller, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered lawsuit 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act complaining of an injury he suffered at work while 

incarcerated. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. § 636. 

After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on February 26, 2024, 

recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8). The Magistrate Judge observed that 

by statute, the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4126, provides the sole remedy 

for a prisoner injured while at work. Thompson v. United States, 495 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 

1974). As a result, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 

Plaintiff received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on March 1, 2024, but no 

objections have been received. As a result, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by theDistrict 

Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, 

from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and 

adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 

2017). 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate 

Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is 

correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 10 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 75
2

(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is 

“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 8) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of the District Court. It is further 

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for want 

of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further 

ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby 

DENIED. 

So Ordered this

Jun 6, 2024

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 10 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 76