alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/23/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      139,691
COMMITMENTS
  36,782   42,194    8,616   77,611   65,910  123,009  116,720   16,682   22,971

CHANGES FROM 07/16/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,548)
   3,330      -87   -1,315   -4,254     -544   -2,239   -1,946     -309     -602

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    26.3     30.2      6.2     55.6     47.2     88.1     83.6     11.9     16.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      177)
      38       48       40       68       62      131      131
```

----

Updated July 26, 2013
# / Hardesty Parraguirre J.

J. a temporary restraining order). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Russell Christine Pappas Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
Vernon Wendell RISBY, Petitioner, v. Chad WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

No. 19-916.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Tony SPARKS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7437

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Robert Philip TUERK, petitioner, v. The DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF the SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 18-104.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/16/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       44,592
COMMITMENTS
   8,962    1,890    1,560   22,900   31,009   33,423   34,460   11,170   10,133

CHANGES FROM 10/09/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -819)
     173      726       92   -1,454   -2,006   -1,189   -1,188      370      370

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    20.1      4.2      3.5     51.4     69.5     75.0     77.3     25.0     22.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       54)
      13        7        7       29       20       48       30
```

----

Updated June 29, 2007
Denis P. KELLEHER, et ux., petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

No. 18-394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2289

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat spaceports like airports

under the exempt facility bond rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 18, 1999

Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself and Mr. DAVIS of Florida) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat

spaceports like airports under the exempt facility bond rules.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spaceport Investment

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. SPACEPORTS TREATED LIKE AIRPORTS UNDER EX7 EMPT FACILITY BOND RULES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 142(a)

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt

10 facility bond) is amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 2289 IH

1 ‘‘(1) airports and spaceports,’’.

2 (b) TREATMENT OF GROUND LEASES.—Paragraph

3 (1) of section 142(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of

4 1986 (relating to certain facilities must be governmentally

5 owned) is amended by adding at the end the following new

6 subparagraph:

7 ‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR SPACEPORT

8 GROUND LEASES.—For purposes of subpara9 graph (A), spaceport property which is located

10 on land owned by the United States and which

11 is used by a governmental unit pursuant to a

12 lease (as defined in section 168(h)(7)) from the

13 United States shall be treated as owned by such

14 unit if—

15 ‘‘(i) the lease term (within the mean16 ing of section 168(i)(3)) is at least 15

17 years, and

18 ‘‘(ii) such unit would be treated as

19 owning such property if such lease term

20 were equal to the useful life of such prop21 erty.’’.

22 (c) BOND MAY BE FEDERALLY GUARANTEED.—

23 Paragraph (3) of section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue

24 Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is amended by add25 ing at the end the following new subparagraph:
3

•HR 2289 IH

1 ‘‘(E) EXCEPTION FOR SPACEPORTS.—

2 Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any exempt fa3 cility bond issued as part of an issue described

4 in paragraph (1) of section 142(a) to provide a

5 spaceport in situations where—

6 ‘‘(i) the guarantee of the United

7 States (or an agency or instrumentality

8 thereof) is the result of payment of rent,

9 user fees, or other charges by the United

10 States (or any agency or instrumentality

11 thereof), and

12 ‘‘(ii) the payment of the rent, user

13 fees, or other charges is for, and condi14 tioned upon, the use of the spaceport by

15 the United States (or any agency or in16 strumentality thereof).’’.

17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

18 this section shall apply to obligations issued after the date

19 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Shanta G. PHILLIPS-BERRY, Petitioner, v. Patricia Blackwell SCURLOCK, et al.

No. 18-9757

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE BALANCE STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FILED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000917821
<NAME> UROMED-CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          45,556
<SECURITIES>                                    56,082
<RECEIVABLES>                                      106
<ALLOWANCES>                                        36
<INVENTORY>                                        587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,549
<PP&E>                                           5,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 110,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,536
<BONDS>                                         69,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,739
<OTHER-SE>                                    (70,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   110,488
<SALES>                                          2,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,622
<CGS>                                            5,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (863)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (47,660)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,660)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.87)


</TABLE>
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Lindie L. BANKS, et al.

No. 19-440

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Motion of American Bankers Association, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,004
<INVENTORY>                                     21,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,481
<PP&E>                                           8,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,834
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           10,346
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,307
<SALES>                                         43,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,477
<CGS>                                           33,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   557
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,139
<INCOME-TAX>                                       845
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,294
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,912
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,455
<INVENTORY>                                     17,296
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,671
<PP&E>                                         101,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,896
<BONDS>                                         24,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           119
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,408
<SALES>                                        158,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,431
<CGS>                                           96,606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   596
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,909
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,446
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
SCPW-17-0000635

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL J. FUCHS and KE KAILANI DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Hawaii

limited liability company, Petitioners,

vs.

THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent,

and

KE KAILANI PARTNERS LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company,

HAWAII RENAISSANCE BUILDERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company, ET. AL., Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(SCWC-12-0000758; SCWC-13-0004290; CAAP-12-0000070; CAAP-12-0000758;

CAAP-13-0004290; CIV. NOS. 09-1-2523-10 and 11-1-1577-07)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Nacino, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for writ of

mandamus and for a stay, filed on August 30, 2017, the documents

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the

record, it appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate that they

have a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or

that they lack alternative means to seek relief. Petitioners,

therefore, are not entitled to an extraordinary writ. See Kema

v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ

of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-17-0000635

14-SEP-2017

01:42 PM
relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus, including the request for a stay, is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 14, 2017.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Edwin C. Nacino

2
IN RE the LAW OFFICES OF NINA RINGGOLD, et al.

No. 19-750

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2306

To amend the qualification requirements for serving with the Census

Monitoring Board.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1999

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. JONES

of Ohio, and Mrs. CLAYTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To amend the qualification requirements for serving with

the Census Monitoring Board.

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

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

4 It is the sense of the Congress that—

5 (1) the Census Monitoring Board was created

6 to provide bipartisan oversight of the decennial cen7 sus to be conducted in 2000, one of the most critical

8 constitutional functions the Federal Government will

9 perform;
2

•HR 2306 IH

1 (2) members of the Board are expected to pro2 vide objective, unbiased oversight and to contribute

3 a substantial amount of time toward their duties;

4 (3) members of the Board should make every

5 effort to avoid conflicts of interest or even the ap6 pearance of a potential conflict of interest; and

7 (4) acceptance of a senior-level position in a

8 Presidential or a Vice Presidential campaign creates

9 a significant possibility of a conflict of interest and

10 is incompatible with the objective, unbiased oversight

11 required of members of the Board.

12 SEC. 2. CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DISQUALIFIED FROM SERV13 ING.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 210(i)

15 of Public Law 105–119 (13 U.S.C. 141 note; 111 Stat.

16 2486) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara17 graph (A), by striking the period at the end of subpara18 graph (B) and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and by adding at the end

19 the following:

20 ‘‘(C) as the chairman or co-chairman of, or in

21 any other senior-level management position with—

22 ‘‘(i) a political committee for an individual

23 who seeks nomination for election, or election,

24 to the office of President or Vice President, or
3

•HR 2306 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) a national committee of a political

2 party,

3 whether on a paid basis or otherwise.’’.

4 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (2) of such section

5 210(i) is further amended, in the matter before subpara6 graph (A), by striking ‘‘or who has ever served’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONTBEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

ROCKY RON TRAYE GREEN

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 1:23-CR-00096-MJT

ORDER ACCEPTING 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 Zack 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 Indictment filed against the Defendant. 

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The Court 

ORDERS that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States 

Magistrate Judge are ACCEPTED. The Court accepts the Defendant’s plea. The Court

ORDERS the Defendant’s attorney to read and discuss the presentence report with the 

Defendant and file any objections to the report BEFORE the date of the sentencing hearing. 

Case 1:23-cr-00096-MJT Document 19 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 45
2

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Rocky Ron Traye Green, is 

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

- Felon in Possession of a Firearm.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 4th day of December, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00096-MJT Document 19 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 46
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                          64,134
<SECURITIES>                                    98,468
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                       950
<INVENTORY>                                     22,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,349
<PP&E>                                          64,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   267,156
<SALES>                                        203,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,143
<CGS>                                           64,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (7,703)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,795
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,953
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70


</TABLE>
Cash Jerome FERGUSON-CASSIDY, petitioner, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 17-8937.

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.
Tom DOMINGO, Sr., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, et al.

No. 19M21

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 2:23-cv-00486-JRG-RSP Document 2 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 55
Robert William WAZNEY, Petitioner v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

No. 18-9624

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT BRET COONEY (DECEASED) - AMANDA SERRANO, Petitioner

v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (PATTERSON UTI, INC.), Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 393 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.