alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/12/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       57,073
COMMITMENTS
  13,196    8,253    1,519   27,147   34,544   41,862   44,316   15,211   12,757

CHANGES FROM 11/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,640)
     903      675      334     -589     -521      648      488    1,992    2,152

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    23.1     14.5      2.7     47.6     60.5     73.3     77.6     26.7     22.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       78)
      22       10       13       39       26       64       47
```

----

Updated November 15, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 LUFKIN DIVISION

PAUL A. SHINALL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-175

DONALD MUNIZ, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Paul A. Shinall, a prisoner confined at the Wainwright Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice,Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff moved to dismiss this action. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss the action voluntarily prior to the service of

an answer or motion for summary judgment by any adverse parties. Because the defendants have

not served a responsive pleading, Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss should be granted.

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss should be granted, and the action should be

dismissed without prejudice.

Case 9:23-cv-00175-MAC-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7
Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 15th day of November, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00175-MAC-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00194-CV

IN RE KEITH AND SERENA TINKER

Original Proceeding

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Intervenors' Motion for Extension of Time filed with this Court on July 10, 2017 is 

granted. The Intervenors' response is due on August 15, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order delivered and filed July 19, 2017
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                        |
|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership. |

Date:    November 14, 2005

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R.McAuliffe, Jr.Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief FinancialOfficer and Director

----
Mitchell Jay STEIN, Petitioner v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

No. 19-97

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Matthew FREEMAN, Petitioner v. TEXAS

No. 19-37

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District denied.
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Michael William KWASNIK.

No. D-3036.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Michael William Kwasnik, of Hollywood, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Larry R. TART, petitioner, v. Erik A. HOOKS, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

No. 18-8196.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6836

CHARLES GARY SINGLETARY, III, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN JACKSON, Warden, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:22-cv-04362-HMH) 

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles Gary Singletary, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6836 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Charles Gary Singletary, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered its order on March 28, 2023. Singletary filed the notice 

of appeal on August 18, 2023.∗

 Because Singletary failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

∗ For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Singletary could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6836 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
| 1.   | (i) the technical report entitled the “Technical Report for Jinfeng Gold Mine, China” dated January 13, 2012 and effective March 15, 2011, (ii) the description of all scientific or technical information relating to the Kisladag, Efemcukuru, Jinfeng, Olympias and Skouries properties and (iii) certain technical information, mineral reserve estimates of the Tocantinzinho Mine and the Skouries (underground) in Eldorado Gold Corporation’s (the “Company”) Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “AIF”); and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | All scientific and technical information contained in the Company’s Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “MD&A”), |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Norman Pitcher                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Norman Pitcher, P. Geo.                                                                                                                          |
|   |   | Eldorado Gold Corporation                                                                                                                        |
|   |   | President                                                                                                                                        |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                             |

----
Devon A. BROWN, Petitioner v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.

No. 18-9204

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 402ND DISTRICT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 25th 

day of January, A.D. 2018, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Ronald Mullins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-17-00134-CR

Trial Court No. 20,229-2008

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Ronald Mullins 

pled “not true” to the allegation. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We further order that the appellant, Ronald Mullins, pay all costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 30th day of May, A.D. 2018.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
<PAGE>

Exhibit 24.1

                           ACT Teleconferencing, Inc.

                                Power of Attorney
                          of Directors and/or Officers

The undersigned directors and/or officers of ACT Teleconferencing, Inc., a
Colorado corporation, hereby make, constitute, and appoint Gerald D. Van
Eeckhout and Gavin Thomson, and either of them, the undersigned's true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact, with power of substitution, for the undersigned and in
the undersigned's names, place, and stead, to sign and affix the undersigned's
names as such directors and/or officers of said corporation to an Annual Report
on Form 10-K or other applicable form, and all amendments to it, to be filed by
said corporation in March, 2002 with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Washington, D.C., under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, with all
exhibits and other supporting documents, with the SEC, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact, and either of them, full power and authority to do and
perform any and all acts necessary or incidental to the performance and
execution of the powers expressly granted in this power of attorney.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set the undersigned's hand this March
22, 2002.

                                 /s/ Ronald J. Bach
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Ronald J. Bach


                                 /s/ James F. Seifert
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 James F. Seifert


                                 /s/ Donald Sturtevant
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Donald Sturtevant


                                 /s/ Carolyn R. Van Eeckhout
                                 ------------------------------------------
                                 Carolyn R. Van Eeckhout
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,043,071
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     703,234
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  547,332
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               3,459,792
<CASH>                                         212,112
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             771,662
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,699,862
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,478,877
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             69,333
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       806,293
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,699,862
<PREMIUMS>                                   6,910,492
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            141,013
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  79,563
<BENEFITS>                                   4,949,668
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         1,835,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                137,056
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    80,956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 - Marshall Division

ASUS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING INC.

AND CELERITY IP, LLC

2:23-cv-487

T-MOBILE USA, INC.

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

by and through its Registered Agent

The Corporation Service Company

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620

Austin, Texas 78701

Robert Christopher Bunt

Parker Bunt & Ainsworth, PC

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 418

Tyler, Texas 75702

10/19/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00487-JRG-RSP Document 4 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 57
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-487 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00487-JRG-RSP Document 4 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 58
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11141

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HOA GIA TRAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-203-X

- - - - - - - - - -

August 2, 1996

Before KING, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hoa Gia Tran appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Tran

argues that his warrantless arrest was not supported by probable cause. Based upon the

testimony presented at the hearing on Tran's motion to suppress, we conclude that the officers

had probable cause to arrest Tran. See United States v. Carrillo-Morales, 27 F.3d 1054, 1062

(5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7418

STEWART MANLEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 00363

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Stewart Manley, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
St ewart Manley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a default judgment and granting the Government’s motion to dismiss his Federal Tort Claims Act complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . We have reviewed the record and find

n o reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Manley v. United States , No. 1:16

- cv
- 00363

- AJT

- IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
Davontah Lee NELSON, Petitioner, v. Sherry L. BURT, Warden.

No. 19-6153

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
Trenton R. BIRCHETTE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-8742

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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6861

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONNELL DEAN BENSON, a/k/a Dizzy

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00122-D-1)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnell Dean Benson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Dean Benson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) 

(reviewing district court’s decision whether to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for 

abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED