alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/03/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       62,743
COMMITMENTS
   5,566    2,426    7,822   49,355   52,495   62,743   62,743        0        0

CHANGES FROM 12/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:          .)
       .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.9      3.9     12.5     78.7     83.7    100.0    100.0      0.0      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       5        3        5        7       10       12       18
```

----

Updated January 6, 2012
# 28160

- rev & rem

- PER CURIAM

201 8 S

. D

. 62

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

, Plaintiff and Appellant

,

v.

WAYFAIR INC.,

OVERSTOCK. COM

, INC.

,

a nd NEWEGG INC. Defendant s and Appellee s

.

* * * *

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

THE HONORABLE MARK W. BARNETT

Judge

* * * *

MARTY J. JACKLEY

Attorney General

RICHARD M. WILLIAMS

Deputy Attorney General

KIRSTEN E. JASPER

Assistant Attorney General

Pierre, South Dakota

ERIC F. CITRON of

Goldstein & Russell, PC

Bethesda, Maryland Attorneys for plaintiff

and appellant.

* * * *

CONSIDERED ON MOTION

J ULY 25, 2018

OPINION FILED 08/ 09 /2018G EORGE S. ISAACSON

MARTIN I. EISENSTEIN

MATTHEW P. SCHAEFER of

Brann & Isaacson

Lewiston, Maine

JEFF BRATKIEWICZ

KATHRYN J. HOSKINS of

Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons , LLP

Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant s

and appellee s

.#2 8160

- 1

- PER CURIAM

[¶ 1. ] On September 13, 2017

, this Court issued its opinion in State v.

Wayfair Inc. , 2017 S.D. 56, 901 N.W.2d 754. We affirmed the circuit court’s

summary judgment for internet sellers and held that the statutory scheme

requiring these sellers with no physical presence in South Dakota to collect and

remit sales tax violates the C ommerce C lause.

[¶ 2. ] On June 21, 2018

, the United States Supreme Court vacated our

judgment and remanded the case for further proceeding s not inconsistent with its

opinion. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2100 (2018).

“Any remaining claims regarding the application of the Commerce Clause in the

absence of Q uill [504 U. S. 298, 112 S. Ct. 1904, 119 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1992)] and Bellas

Hess [386 U. S. 753, 87 S. Ct. 1389, 18 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1967)] may be ad dressed in the

first instance on remand.” Id.

[¶ 3. ] On July 23, 2018

, this Court received and filed certified copies of the

United States Supreme Court’s mandate and judg ment in Wayfair . Two days later,

on July 2 5 , 2018, the State filed a motion requesting that we remand the matter to

the circuit court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the United States

Supreme Court’s opinion in Wayfair . Internet sellers filed no response to the State’s

motion. See SDCL 15

- 26A

- 87.2.

[¶ 4. ] Accordingly, the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion for

summary judgment is reversed

, and the case is dispositively remanded for further

proceedings not inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court’s o pinion in

Wayfair.#2 8160

- 2

- [¶ 5. ] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, KERN, JENSEN, and

SALTER, Justices, participating.
Anthony Dajuan YATES, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-9339

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District denied.
Exhibit 32

               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-K of Baltic
International USA, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David A. Grossman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
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:

  (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
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.

Date:  March 30, 2012

                              /s/ David A. Grossman
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              David A. Grossman
                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

**Section 1350 Certifications**

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, based on such officer’s knowledge, that: 

|        |        | (i)    | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |

|  |  | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|--|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

| Date: March 16, 2006 | /s/ Anthony J. Simonetta |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                      |                          |
|                 | Anthony J. Simonetta     |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer  |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. ERIC ANTHONY WIMBUSH, a/k/a E from DC, a/k/a Sld Dft 5:02CR37-11, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-11; 5:08-cv-00010- RLV)

Submitted: January 20, 2009 Decided: February 5, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Anthony Wimbush, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Anthony Wimbush seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wimbush has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**I, Stanley A. Fronczkowski, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report as of and for the period ended June 30, 2007 on Form10-Q of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the “registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 13, 2007 /s/ Stanley A. Fronczkowski   Stanley A. Fronczkowski   Chief Financial Officer
Kenneth Fernandez JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. Sadie DARNELL, Sheriff, Alachua County, Florida, et al.

No. 19-928

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/29/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       44,263
COMMITMENTS
   6,924    2,090    2,421   22,946   28,899   32,291   33,410   11,972   10,853

CHANGES FROM 01/22/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        313)
    -202       20      584   -1,032     -949     -650     -345      963      658

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    15.6      4.7      5.5     51.8     65.3     73.0     75.5     27.0     24.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       55)
      10        5        7       34       25       48       36
```

----

Updated February 1, 2013
Juan THOMAS, petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 18-7021.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2286 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2286

     To designate the Federal building located at 10th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, DC, as the ``Robert F. Kennedy 
                   Department of Justice Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 1999

Mr. Scarborough (for himself, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Roemer, and Mr. 
    Quinn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To designate the Federal building located at 10th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, DC, as the ``Robert F. Kennedy 
                   Department of Justice Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 10th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, in Washington, DC, and known as the Department of Justice 
Building, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert F. Kennedy 
Department of Justice Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert F. Kennedy 
Department of Justice Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Sun Communities Operating Limited Partnership on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-2522;
File No. 333-14595) of our report dated February 25, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Sun
Communities Operating Limited Partnership as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994, which report is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Detroit, Michigan
March 27, 1997
Kimothy Maurice WYNN, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 18-115.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

*325Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,719
<INVENTORY>                                     64,644
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,018
<PP&E>                                          43,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,641
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,670
<SALES>                                        604,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               604,710
<CGS>                                          485,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,257
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,447
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,069
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    245
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sec. 1350, as adopted),
Thomas P. Cawley, Chief Financial Officer of Peets Coffee & Tea, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 30, 2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 12th day
of March, 2008.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ THOMAS P. CAWLEY   
|Thomas P. Cawley       
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Peets Coffee & Tea, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

MARY MERISIER
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 819

[ November 9, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Tim Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 13

- 11204 CF10A

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY 

TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Lenovo Group Limited’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction. After consideration of said motion, the Court hereby finds that 

Defendant’s Motion shall be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant Lenovo 

Group Limited is hereby dismissed in its entirety. 

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 18-5 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 659
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

DOQUAJANIKA RUFF (2)

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00190

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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 Count Three of the Indictment.

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

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, the Court hereby 

ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States 

Magistrate Judge and accepts Defendant’s guilty plea. It is further ORDERED that, in accordance 

with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the Magistrate Judge’s findings, Defendant is adjudged guilty 

as to Count Three of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) - Possession 

of a Stolen Firearm.

Case 4:23-cr-00190-ALM-AGD Document 59 Filed 08/20/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 126