alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/25/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       32,897
COMMITMENTS
   4,427    3,581      658   17,791   19,727   22,876   23,966   10,021    8,931

CHANGES FROM 06/18/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,379)
  -1,171     -433     -702      367     -435   -1,506   -1,570     -873     -809

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    13.5     10.9      2.0     54.1     60.0     69.5     72.9     30.5     27.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       53)
      10        8        5       31       20       43       32
```

----

Updated June 28, 2013
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas

Hanshow Technology Co.,Ltd. et al

SES-Imagotag SA et al

2:23-cv-00617

 Hanshow Technology Co.,Ltd.; Shanghai Hanshi Information Technology Co.,Ltd

02/15/2024

Scott Richey (DC Bar No. 1013446)

Steptoe LLP

1300 Connecticut Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

srichey@steptoe.com

(202) 429-6436

(202) 429-3902

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 322
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3971EM

_____________

DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Chrysler Corporation, *

*

Appellee. *

Appeals from the United States

_____________ District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

No. 97-4104EM

_____________ [UNPUBLISHED]

DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Chrysler Corporation, *

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 19, 1998

Filed: November 27, 1998 

_____________
The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth *

Circuit, sitting by designation.

-2-

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL, Circuit Judges. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The court has considered the briefs and heard oral arguments in this diversitybased breach of contract action. Chrysler Corporation raises several contentions about

instructions, admissibility of evidence, and post-trial rulings deemed adverse to

Chrysler. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. contend the district court improperly

refused its request for prejudgment interest. The parties' arguments have been carefully

analyzed and considered. We have reviewed de novo questions of state law. Having

reviewed the record in the context of the parties' arguments, we find the record supports

the district court's decisions. Because our review involves the application of

established principles of law in a fact-intensive diversity case, and the parties'

submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court, we

conclude that an extensive discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose. We

thus affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY ALL DEADLINES

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Resolution

filed by Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. After considering the Motion and finding good 

cause existing for granting the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should 

be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadlines in these cases are hereby stayed 

for 30 days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 66-1 Filed 08/28/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 5201
Frank J. LAWRENCE, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

No. 19-115

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.
Derrick Christopher JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7067.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-1997                JAN-01-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997                SEP-30-1997  
<CASH>                                2,111,187                  2,111,187
<SECURITIES>                                  0                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                         9,313,369                  9,313,369
<ALLOWANCES>                            901,674                    901,674
<INVENTORY>                              51,053                     51,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     13,872,008                 13,872,008
<PP&E>                               48,404,843                 48,404,843
<DEPRECIATION>                       11,924,972                 11,924,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       51,125,002                 51,125,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4,193,221                  4,193,221
<BONDS>                                       0                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0                          0
<PREFERRED>                                   0                          0
<COMMON>                                 46,231                     46,231 
<OTHER-SE>                           36,550,808                 36,550,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         51,125,002                 51,125,002
<SALES>                              13,053,085                 35,613,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     13,053,085                 35,613,825
<CGS>                                 7,525,026                 19,619,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         7,525,026                 19,619,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      4,576,205                 10,640,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        643,528                    643,528
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      158,243                    318,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         376,748                  4,786,584
<INCOME-TAX>                            132,230                  1,806,176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     244,518                  2,980,408
<DISCONTINUED>                                0                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0                          0
<CHANGES>                                     0                          0
<NET-INCOME>                            244,518                  2,980,408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .05                        .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .05                        .65
        

</TABLE>
Donald COVINGTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5108

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.
Danilo MALLARI, Petitioner, v. Tracy VESSIGAULT, et al.

No. 19-7262.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Lawton Frederick TYSON, Petitioner v. TEXAS;

No. 18-9625

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2284 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2284

   To provide that certain costs of private foundations in removing 
   hazardous substances shall be treated as qualifying distributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 1999

  Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself and Mrs. Northup) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that certain costs of private foundations in removing 
   hazardous substances shall be treated as qualifying distributions.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN COSTS OF PRIVATE FOUNDATION IN REMOVING HAZARDOUS 
              SUBSTANCES TREATED AS QUALIFYING DISTRIBUTION.

    (a) In General.--In the case of any taxable year beginning after 
December 31, 1999, the distributable amount of a private foundation for 
such taxable year for purposes of section 4942 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 shall be reduced (but not below zero) by any amount paid 
or incurred (or set aside) by such private foundation for the 
investigatory costs and direct costs of removal or taking remedial 
action with respect to a hazardous substance released at a facility 
which was owned or operated by such private foundation.
    (b) Limitations.--Subsection (a) shall only apply to costs--
            (1) incurred with respect to hazardous substances disposed 
        of at a facility owned or operated by the private foundation 
        but only if--
                    (A) such facility was transferred to such 
                foundation by bequest before December 11, 1980, and
                    (B) the active operation of such facility by such 
                foundation was terminated before December 12, 1980, and
            (2) which were not incurred pursuant to a pending order 
        issued to the private foundation unilaterally by the President 
        or the President's assignee under section 106 of the 
        Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
        Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9606), or pursuant to a 
        nonconsensual judgment against the private foundation issued in 
        a governmental cost recovery action under section 107 of such 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 9607).
    (c) Hazardous Substance.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``hazardous substance'' has the meaning given such term by section 
101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(14)).
                                 <all>
```
JonMichael GUY, Petitioner, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 19-725

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,404
<PP&E>                                       1,622,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,611,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,394
<BONDS>                                        558,336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         88
<COMMON>                                           431
<OTHER-SE>                                     988,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   989,216
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,452
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD; 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE, 

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND 

WAIVER OF FOREIGN SERVICE REQUIREMENT

Before the Court is Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics 

Company, Ltd.’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Move, Answer, or Otherwise 

Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Waiver of Foreign Service Requirement. After considering 

same, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and 

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

hereby extended up to and including October 10, 2023.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of process for Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has

been waived.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 13-1 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 249
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer - Sarbanes-Oxley Section 906








Pursuant to18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Triad Guaranty Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








May 13, 2011

/s/ Kenneth W. JonesKenneth W. Jones

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Nicholas RIVERA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5096

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, NOTES, THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                            9,407
<SECURITIES>                                                      4,970
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    31,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        365
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 62,441
<PP&E>                                                            7,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   97,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            35,347
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                       5,000
<COMMON>                                                            119
<OTHER-SE>                                                       53,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     97,894
<SALES>                                                          41,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 41,290
<CGS>                                                            33,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    39,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   2,122
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        904
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               1,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      1,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0.09
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
             -------------------------------------------------------

Board of Directors and Stockholders
WVS Financial Corp.

We have reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of WVS Financial
Corp.  and  subsidiary  as of December  31, 2004,  and the related  statement of
income for the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, the
consolidated  statement  of changes in  stockholders'  equity for the six- month
period ended December 31, 2004, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for
the  six-month  periods  ended  December  31,  2004 and  2003.  These  financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted  our review in  accordance  with  standards  of the Public  Company
Accounting  Oversights  Board  (United  States).  A review of interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with standards of the Public Company Accounting  Oversights Board, the objective
of which is the  expression of an opinion  regarding  the  financial  statements
taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously  audited,  in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting  Oversights Board (United States),  the consolidated balance sheet as
of June 30, 2004, and the related consolidated  statements of income, changes in
stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year then  ended  (not  presented
herein),  and in our report  dated July 30, 2004,  we  expressed an  unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
January 28,  2005


                                      E-5