alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/29/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      159,085
COMMITMENTS
  61,189   17,374   14,561   63,906   99,419  139,656  131,354   19,429   27,731

CHANGES FROM 10/22/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        950)
  -1,195   -1,260    1,669      624      463    1,098      872     -148       78

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    38.5     10.9      9.2     40.2     62.5     87.8     82.6     12.2     17.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      188)
      65       36       47       51       66      139      131
```

----

Updated November 6, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

'

'

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-103

'

CARL WAYNE HITE, JR. '

A/K/A “CARL WAYNE HITE” '

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 Superseding 

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 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, Carl Wayne Hite, Jr. (1), is 

Case 1:23-cr-00103-MAC-ZJH Document 70 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 206
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Superseding Indictment charging a violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 - Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance.

Case 1:23-cr-00103-MAC-ZJH Document 70 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 207
Hector DOMINGUEZ-GABRIEL, aka Kinko, aka John Richard Bellefeur, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9734

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2155

To suspend temporarily the duty on THQ (Toluhydroquinone).

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. JENKINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on THQ

(Toluhydroquinone).

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.05 THQ

(Toluhydroquinone), purchased

for resale (CAS

No. 000095–71–

6) (provided for

in subheading

2907.29.90) ....... Free Free No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•HR 2155 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10427

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

TELASA CLARK, III

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-177-5-A

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

December 30, 2002

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Telasa Clark , III (“Clark”), appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to one count of bank robbery and two

counts of using and carrying a firearm during the commission of a

crime of violence. The district court departed upward from the

sentencing range calculated under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines to impose an aggregate 600-month sentence for the

offenses of conviction.
No. 02-10427

-2-

Clark has failed to establish that the aggravated robbery

for which he was convicted in state court and the offenses of

conviction were part of a “common scheme or plan” within the

meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1); he therefore has shown no

error in the use of the state conviction in his criminal history

score. See United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482 (5th Cir.

1992), abrogated in part, on different grounds, by Buford v.

United States, 532 U.S. 59, 64-66 (2001); United States v. Ford,

996 F.2d 83, 86 (5th Cir. 1993).

Clark has failed to show that the district court clearly

erred in adding three levels to the offense level because the

court determined that one of the robbery victims sustained more

than bodily injury but less than severe bodily injury. See

U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(D); United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 30,

37 (5th Cir. 1993).

Finally, Clark has failed to show plain error in the

district court’s decision to depart upward in light of Clark’s

admitted extensive history of armed robbery; such a departure is

authorized by U.S.C.G. § 4A1.3(e), the district court explained

its reasons for departure, and Clark has not shown that the

extent of the departure was unreasonable. See United States v.

Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United

States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc).

AFFIRMED.
Clarence Rozell GOODE, Jr., Petitioner, v. Tommy SHARP, Interim Warden.

No. 19-6857

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Michael Mancil BROWN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9630

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/26/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      704,812
COMMITMENTS
 115,096   14,870  212,360  353,502  440,726  680,959  667,956   23,854   36,856

CHANGES FROM 11/19/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -4,597)
   5,222     -590    3,486  -14,012  -16,960   -5,304  -14,064      707    9,467

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    16.3      2.1     30.1     50.2     62.5     96.6     94.8      3.4      5.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      150)
      49       27       60       68       60      143      124
```

----

Updated December 2, 2013
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/12/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       72,441
COMMITMENTS
   7,246    3,925       13   59,316   64,760   66,575   68,698    5,866    3,743

CHANGES FROM 06/05/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,192)
    -843      162     -330    4,962    4,267    3,789    4,099    1,403    1,093

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.0      5.4      0.0     81.9     89.4     91.9     94.8      8.1      5.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       62)
       8        5        1       32       30       41       35
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/12/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      136,137
COMMITMENTS
  15,073    7,473    2,381  103,321  112,234  120,775  122,088   15,362   14,049

CHANGES FROM 06/05/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     28,965)
    -752   -1,491      530   24,069   23,767   23,847   22,806    5,118    6,159

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.1      5.5      1.7     75.9     82.4     88.7     89.7     11.3     10.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       87)
      21       13        5       35       35       59       50
```

----

Updated June 15, 2012
## Court ttf Appeals Jfltftlj district of Qtexaa at Dallas JUDGMENT THOMAS WAYNE WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 05-98-01113-CR V. Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F98- 45083-PH). Opinion Per Curiam before Justices Ovard, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Moseley, and O'Neill. 

# f?0

We VACATE ourjudgment and opinion dated May 25,2000. Based upon thejointmotion ofthe parties and in the interest ofjustice, we REVERSE the trial court'sjudgment ofJune 16, 1998, and we REMAND this cause for further proceedings. Judgment entered June 7, 2000. 

### (JOHN OVARD JUSTICE r~ 

### ~^A/fX-^.-^fJVACATE, REVERSE, REMAND; Opinion Filed June 7, 2000

In The 

## (ftmtrt ofAppeals Jfiftlj district nf Qtexas at Dallas No. 05-98-01113-CR No. 05-98-01114-CR THOMAS WAYNE WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appealfrom the Criminal District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F98-45083-PH and F98-45084-NH

OPINION PER CURIAM Before Justices Ovard, Moseley, and O'Neill 

### On June 1, 2000, the parties filed ajointMotion for Rehearing and Remand requesting that in the interest of justicethe Court vacate its opinion andjudgment in this case and remand the cause 

### to the trial court for further proceedings. We grant the parties' motion. See TEX. R. App. P. 2. Accordingly, based on thejointmotionofthe parties and in the interestof justice, we VACATE our 

### judgment and opinion dated May25,2000, REVERSEthe trial court's judgment of June 16,1998,

### and REMAND this cause for further proceedings. Our mandate shall issue forthwith.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47

-2- PER CURIAMFifth Court ofAppeals Case Attorney Address List Page: 1 Date Printed: 06/07/2000 Case Number: 05-98-01113-CR Date Filed: 07/06/1998 

### Style: Williams, Thomas Wayne

v. The State ofTexas Trial Judge: Warder, Janice 

### Trial Court Reporter: Belton, Mary Trial Court: CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT # 1 Trial County: DALLAS APP Sue Korioth ATT 011681975 P.O. Box 600103 Dallas, TX 75360-0103 Phone 214/384-3864 Fax 214/821-2519 STA Anne Wetherholt ATT 021235300 Assistant Distrtict Attorney 

### Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 North Industrial Blvd. LB 19 Dallas, TX 75207-4399 Phone 214/653-3642 Fax 214/653-3643
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

DUSTAN R. KILLINGSWORTH, 

#09254, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TAWANNA KILLINGSORTH, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-562-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Dustan Killingsworth, a former Rains County Jail inmate proceeding 

pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On June 14, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court 

dismiss this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order. 

Docket No. 13. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known 

address, with an acknowledgment card. The docket reflects, however, that the mail 

was returned as “undeliverable.” Docket No. 14. Plaintiff neither filed objections to 

the Report nor a notice updating mailing address. 

The 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 

Case 6:23-cv-00562-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 47
2 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

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

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

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. 13) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 

comply with an order of the Court. 

Case 6:23-cv-00562-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 48
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

REDSTONE LOGICS LLC

2:23-cv-00485

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 

85 Challenger Road 

Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660

Reza Mirzaie 

rmirzaie@raklaw.com 

Russ, August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90025 

Telephone: 310.826.7474 / Facsimile 310.826-6991 10/18/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00485-JRG Document 8 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 76
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-00485 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00485-JRG Document 8 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 77
In Re Rajamani SENTHILNATHAN, petitioner.

No. 18-6357.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Edgar ORTEGA-LIMONES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6773

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.
Abraham Asley AUGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5294

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**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 September 30, 2007 onForm 10-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: November 14, 2007 /s/ Stanley A. Fronczkowski   Stanley A. Fronczkowski   Chief Financial Officer