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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED DECEMBER 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         369,407                 451,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  50,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,327,860               2,885,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,644                  18,992
<INVENTORY>                                    269,796                 136,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,506,016               3,726,348
<PP&E>                                      10,046,316               3,467,063
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,969,428)               1,094,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,326,200               7,929,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,763,920               3,213,366
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     7,463,931               6,158,584
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,326,200               7,929,711
<SALES>                                     19,009,645              10,234,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,009,645              10,234,403
<CGS>                                       10,881,556               4,727,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,535,113              10,136,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             523,322                  99,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,525,468)                  98,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (401,762)               (332,566)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,117,125)               (436,808)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,117,125)               (436,808)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.58)                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)                  (0.14)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         110,380                 965,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,880                 273,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     66,589                 195,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               348,993               1,446,643
<PP&E>                                          35,211                  12,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,694,197               6,016,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,984,663                 752,944
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,580,000               1,630,000
<COMMON>                                       156,292                 155,028
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,026,758)               1,478,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,694,197               6,016,144
<SALES>                                        572,956                 548,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               658,535                 910,562
<CGS>                                          490,126                 452,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,544,198               1,604,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,935                 112,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,143,115                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             265,563                 507,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,137,625)               (711,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,137,625)               (711,659)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (238,156)                (86,799)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,375,781)               (798,458)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.16)                  (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)                  (0.11)


</TABLE>
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/26/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       32,505
COMMITMENTS
   6,076    1,919      266   19,360   20,355   25,702   22,540    6,803    9,965

CHANGES FROM 06/19/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,041)
     720   -1,734     -180   -1,903      395   -1,363   -1,519     -678     -522

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    18.7      5.9      0.8     59.6     62.6     79.1     69.3     20.9     30.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       46)
       9        6        2       29       24       38       32
```

----

Updated June 29, 2012
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

Mark Robertson, George Curry, Tony Egbuna Ford,

and Rickey Cummings on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated

Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin, and Daniel Dickerson

 Eastern District of Texas 9:23-cv-00023 Sydney Rupe 02/03/2023 02/06/2023 Bobby Lumpkin /s/ Michael J. Calb Michael J. Calb PO BOX 12548, Austin TX 78711 michael.calb@oag.texas.gov (512) 475-3079 Print Save As... Reset

Case 9:23-cv-00023-MAC-ZJH Document 12 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 7
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2135

_____________________________

JAMAL CORDELL JORDAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

May 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-2779

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Raymond L. Pierce

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ 

Submitted: December 28, 2021

Filed: January 3, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Pierce appeals the sentence, which was within the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual Guidelines advisory range, imposed by the district 

court1 after he pled guilty to a firearm offense under a plea agreement containing an 

1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri.
-2- 

appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of 

Pierce’s sentence. Pierce has filed a pro se supplemental brief stating that discovery 

was not shown to him before he pleaded guilty, leading to an improperly enhanced 

sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and 

applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d

702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of appeal

waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889−92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly 

and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and it would not result in 

miscarriage of justice). Pierce’s challenge to the sentencing enhancements do not 

call into question the validity of his plea, see United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 

867, 871−72 (8th Cir. 1998) (enforcing appeal waiver resulting from knowing and 

voluntary decision); and while he states that discovery was not shown to him before 

he pled guilty, he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, see 

United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010) (deferring claim the 

plea was constitutionally flawed to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding when defendant did 

not move to withdraw guilty plea in district court).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the

scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal 

waiver, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
CITGO ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. FRESCATI SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., et al.

No. 18-565.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/12/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       48,476
COMMITMENTS
   4,165    6,976    2,412   40,839   38,077   47,416   47,465    1,060    1,011

CHANGES FROM 02/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,678)
     628      796       61    6,479    6,509    7,168    7,366     -490     -688

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     8.6     14.4      5.0     84.2     78.5     97.8     97.9      2.2      2.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       42)
       4        6        7       22       27       30       37`

---

Updated February 15, 2013
Hubert BABB, petitioner, v. Clara SMITH, et al.

No. 18-7926.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-77

'

GERALD WAYNE RICHMOND, '

'

Defendant. '

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 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, Gerald Wayne Richmond, is 

Case 1:23-cr-00077-MAC-ZJH Document 23 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 65
2

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.

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 20th day of November, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00077-MAC-ZJH Document 23 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 66
### 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 ( S C W C - 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 7 5 8 ; S C W C - 1 3 - 0 0 0 4 2 9 0 ; C AA P - 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 ; C AA P - 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 7 5 8 ; C AA P - 1 3 - 0 0 0 4 2 9 0 ; C I V . N O S . 0 9 - 1 - 2 5 2 3 - 1 0 a n d 1 1 - 1 - 1 5 7 7 - 0 7 ) 

### 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
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2352

___________ Cornelius Moore, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * P.A. Bruce Wagner, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 28, 2000 Filed: December 4, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Nebraskaprisoner Cornelius Moore appeals from the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We affirm.2 The Honorable Kathleen A. Jaudzemis, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska. -2- Moore filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various jail staff, prison staff, andothers, asserting violations of his constitutional rights. Prior to service, the magistrate judge 2 issued a report recommending dismissal of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On June 4, 1999, the district court adopted the report and dismissedMoore’s complaint without prejudice; the court’s order was entered on June 7, 1999. In February 2000, Moore moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), asserting that the magistrate judge abused her discretion, failed to construe liberally his complaint, erred in concluding that he failed to state a claim under notice pleading, and erred in requiring him to file an amended complaint. The district court denied Moore’s motion, finding that the complaint was properly dismissed and that Moore had not shown circumstances justifying relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988). Because Moore’s Rule 60(b) motion asserted only errors of law that could have been raised on appeal from the underlying judgment, and because the motion was filed more than thirty days from the date judgment was entered, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. See id. ; Fox v. Brewer , 620 F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir. 1980) (Rule 60(b) motion is not substitute for appeal). Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Phillip Jerry POWELL, Jr., petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 17-8948.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0422-20

DARRELL JAN PORTER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

ECTOR COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Dulin v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

Nos. PD-0856-19 & PD-1857-19, 2021 WL 1202400 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021), I 

respectfully dissent to the Court’s disposition of the State’s petition for discretionary 

review.

FILED: May 12, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH