alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet, and Income Statement and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                  5,855,655
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             110,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        6,102,755
<PP&E>                                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         27,205,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     615,424
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     132,857
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                              7,147,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           27,205,543
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          700,000
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          852,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (341,119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (341,119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                               (341,119)
<NET-INCOME>                                                    0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.03)



</TABLE>
Gerald W. EILAND, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7636.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the *1552District of Columbia Circuit denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
DM2\18945065.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC; and AT&T CORP., 

 Defendants, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenor.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., AND 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS, 

 Defendants, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenor. 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC., 

 Defendant, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Intervenor. 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 19-4 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 859
 2 

DM2\18945065.1 

ORDER GRANTING NOKIA’S MOTION TO INTERVENE 

Before the Court is Intervenor Nokia of America Corporation’s (“Nokia”) Motion to 

Intervene (the “Motion”). Nokia moved to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

24(a) or, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 24(b). Having considered the Motion, and the relevant 

authorities, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

Nokia is permitted to intervene in these actions and is GRANTED LEAVE to file a responsive 

pleading in intervention within forty-eight (48) hours of entry of this Order. 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 19-4 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 860
aedcex102.htm










Exhibit 10.2


 



FIRST AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of May 1, 2012, by and among American Energy Development Corp. (formerly known as LJM Energy Corp.), a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”) and Joel Felix (the “Executive”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein that are defined in the Employment Agreement (as defined below) shall have the meanings given such terms in the Employment Agreement.


 


A.  The Corporation and the Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated July 8, 2011 (the “Employment Agreement”) providing for the terms and conditions pertaining to the Corporation’s employment of the Executive.


 


B.  The Corporation and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement to increase the Executive’s monthly compensation to Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000) per month.


 


C. Each of the Corporation and the Executive desires to amend the Employment Agreement by entering into this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Section 3.1 of the Employment  Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“3.1 Base Salary.  As compensation in full for the services to be rendered by the Executive under this Agreement during the Term, the Corporation shall pay to the Executive a base salary at a monthly rate of Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000) per month (the “ Base Salary”), which Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with the Corporation’s normal payroll procedures and policies. The Base Salary amount shall increase by an additional Five Hundred Dollars ($500) after the last day of each of the Corporation’s fiscal quarters during the first fiscal year of this Agreement.”







2. Except as and to the extent expressly amended by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


3. This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered will be an original, but all such counterparts will together constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimiles and electronic copies in portable document format (“PDF”) containing original signatures shall be deemed for all purposes to be originally signed copies of the documents that are the subject of such facsimiles or PDF versions.


 







 


[Signatures on following page.]


 






  





1











  







 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused their duly authorized officers to execute this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


 


 







 



	 	AMERICAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Herold Ribsskog	 
	 	 	Herold Ribsskog	 
	 	Its: 	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
 


 


EXECUTIVE

	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Joel Felix	 
	 	 	Joel Felix	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 





 




 


 


 


 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MANDY KEEN,

Plaintiff,

versus

ONPOINT INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-374

ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Mandy Keen, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit alleging claims under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, and claims for negligence and retaliation against Defendant. (#1). The 

court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, 

for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. On December 4, 2023, the 

magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that this case 

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(#5). To date, no objections have been filed. 

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings, and all available 

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Case 1:23-cv-00374-MAC-CLS Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 24
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (#5)

is ADOPTED. It is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All 

pending motions are hereby DENIED.

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 9th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00374-MAC-CLS Document 9 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 25
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/12/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      445,319
COMMITMENTS
  89,480  181,924   75,036  243,691  154,551  408,207  411,511   37,112   33,808

CHANGES FROM 02/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     15,499)
  11,178   -4,239   -6,012    2,979   19,250    8,145    8,999    7,354    6,500

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    20.1     40.9     16.8     54.7     34.7     91.7     92.4      8.3      7.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      175)
      54       71       70       36       33      132      144
```

----

Updated February 15, 2013
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 25, 2018

By the Court * :

No. 17-1727
SCOTT SCHMIDT, Petitioner-Appellant ,

v
. BRIAN FOSTER, Respondent-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 13-CV-1150 Charles N. Clevert, Jr. J udge

.

O R D E R Respondent-Appellee Brian Foster’s pe tition for rehearing en banc is GRANTED . The panel’s opinion and judg ment issued May 29, 2018 are VACATED . By separate order, the court will set a date for oral argument en banc.

* Circuit Judge Michael B. Brennan did not participate in the consideration of this petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC; 

FDRLST MEDIA, LLC; and

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its 

Attorney General, Ken Paxton, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 6:23-cv-00609

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs, The Daily Wire, LLC, FDRLST Media, LLC,

and the State of Texas, pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(a)(2), for leave to file a Memorandum in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction that exceeds the page limit for nondispositive motions. After considering the Motion for Leave, the Court finds it should be granted.

It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits is hereby 

GRANTED.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 10-2 Filed 02/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 610
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1991 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1991

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that natural gas 
   gathering lines are 7-year property for purposes of depreciation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 1999

 Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Watkins, Mr. 
  Houghton, Mr. McInnis, and Mr. Camp) 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 clarify that natural gas 
   gathering lines are 7-year property for purposes of depreciation.

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

SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS GATHERING LINES TREATED AS 7-YEAR PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 168(e)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to classification of certain 
property) is amended by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii) and 
by inserting after clause (i) the following new clause:
                            ``(ii) any natural gas gathering line, 
                        and''.
    (b) Natural Gas Gathering Line.--Subsection (i) of section 168 of 
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(15) Natural gas gathering line.--The term `natural gas 
        gathering line' means--
                    ``(A) the pipe, equipment, and appurtenances 
                determined to be a gathering line by the Federal Energy 
                Regulatory Commission, or
                    ``(B) the pipe, equipment, and appurtenances used 
                to deliver natural gas from the wellhead or a common 
                point to the point at which such gas first reaches--
                            ``(i) a gas processing plant,
                            ``(ii) an interconnection with a 
                        transmission pipeline certificated by the 
                        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as an 
                        interstate transmission pipeline,
                            ``(iii) an interconnection with an 
                        intrastate transmission pipeline, or
                            ``(iv) a direct interconnection with a 
                        local distribution company, a gas storage 
                        facility, or an industrial consumer.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service before, on, or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

JOSE JESUS RAMIREZ
, Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0753 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201100106 The Honorable Dan R. Slayton
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney ’ s Office , Flagstaff By Bryan F. Shea Counsel for Respondent

Jose Jesus Ramirez , Phoenix Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the court.STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of t he Court

2 PER CURIAM :

¶1 Jose Jesus Ramirez petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Following a jury trial, Ramirez was convicted of three counts of aggravated driving under the influence and sentenced to concurrent ten

year prison terms. This court affirmed the conviction s and sentence s on appeal. State v. Ramirez , 1 CA

- CR 11

- 0 840
, 2012 WL 2793111 (Ariz. App. July 10 , 20 12 ) (mem. decision).

¶3 Ramirez commenced a timely proceeding for post

- conviction relief. After appointed counsel filed a notice that he was unable to identify a colorable claim, R amirez filed a pro se petition for post

- conviction relief alleging a variety of claims

. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, finding a majority of the claims Ramirez raised were procedurally precluded and the remainder each failed to state a colorable claim for relief. This petition for review followed.

¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a pet ition for post

conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett , 213 Ariz. 562, 566
, ¶ 17 (2006). Ramirez has failed to show in his petition for review that the superior court abused its discretion in finding the majority of his claims for rel ief were precluded and the remainder failed to state a colorable claim. Thus, the court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c).

¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.
[ J

- 8

- 2018 ] [MO: Baer, J. ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ANTHONY M. RUFO AND TR GETZ, LP

v.

BOARD OF LICENSE AND INSPECTION REVIEW AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

APPEAL OF: THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 22 EAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of Commonwealth Court entered on 12/22/2016 at No. 2735 CD 2015 (reargument denied 02/17/2017) affirming the Order entered on 09/22/2015 by the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 3768 October Term 2014.

ARGUED: May 16, 2018

CONCURRING O PINION

JUSTICE WECHT DECIDED: September 13, 2018

I join the Majority Opinion in full.

I write separately because, although the Majority applies the operative

constitutional standard, see Majority Opinion at 11 (citing Lutz v. Armour , 151 A.2d 108,

110 (Pa. 1959)) (“[T]o pass constitutional muster, the Code, and the provisions therein,

‘must not be unreasonable, unduly oppressive or patently beyond the necessities of the

case, and the means which it employs must have a real and substantial rela tion to the

objects sought to be attained.’”), I believe that this Court should abandon that test and

embrace the more deferential federal standard

. See Shoul v. Pa. , Dep't of Transp

. , Bureau of Driver Licensing , 173 A.3d 669, 690 (Pa. 2017) (Wecht, J., C oncurring) (citing

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc. , 348 U.S. 483 , 487

- 88 (1955)

, for the

proposition that, under rational basis scrutiny, “[a] law need not be in every respect

logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enoug h that there is an evil at[ J

- 8

- 2018 ] [MO: Baer, J. ]

- 2

hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure

was a rational way to correct it.”); City of Phila. v. Lerner , 151 A.3d 1020, 1024 (Pa. 2016).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

OPTIMORPHIX, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BROADCOM, INC., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 5-23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND CASE CAPTION

 Before the Court is Defendant CA, Inc. (“CA”)’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Case 

Caption. Dkt. No. 30. The Court, having considered the motion, and noting it is unopposed, is

of the opinion the motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the case caption is 

hereby amended as shown below: 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

OPTIMORPHIX, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CA, INC., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 5-23-cv-00134 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

.

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 12th day of March, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 32 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 553
HSIU YING LISA TSENG, Petitioner v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-9774

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ANDRES CACERES-SOLARI,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-1693

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:18-cv-00539-EJD, Senior Judge Edward J. 

Damich.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

WILLIAM CASSARA, Cassara Law Office, Evans, GA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 SONIA W. MURPHY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM,

ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-1693 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 02/07/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and 

REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 February 7, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court 

Case: 19-1693 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 02/07/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-609-JDK 

ORDER FOR PROPOSED SCHEDULE 

The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer as required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) by May 24, 2024, and to submit a proposed schedule for 

the disposition of this case, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), 

by May 31, 2024. The parties may propose a schedule including only the dates and 

deadlines that they believe will most efficiently resolve the disputes in this case. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7th May, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 55 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1983
Daniel TEITELBAUM, Petitioner, v. Neil TURNER, Warden.

No. 18-9754

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.
Willie ROSE, petitioner, v. Connie HORTON, Warden.

No. 18-6614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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