alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 21-3 Filed 05/08/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 826
	


	




	



	 	!"#	$
%	& '
(	)

&*+ #,	
-.!
/	0-1.2 	"/3
	&4#	+!&#

5)6 7+
)6/ 

89:;<9=>?@@;A;<?B;CDE?F9 1.GG2 

 /
G
6
/##

HIJKLMENFO9P Q%

89:;<9E?F9 /-&6R/"7 

R /
"

)1.

STT>;<?DB 
6
2&

$/


43
 G4(,#

STT>;<?DB=CDB?<B R.6

=CPP9@TCDU9DB 
6
2&

$/


43
 G4(,#

=CPP9@TCDU9DB=CDB?<B R.6

V9WN>?B;CDENFO9P ,#X%(#%

=>?@@;A;<?B;CDYPCUN<B=CU97Z#(

8?B9V9<9;:9U ([%[#

89<;@;CD8?B9 #[%[#

89<;@;CD )/2 1\/ ))

V9WN>?B;CD]9U;<?>^T9<;?>B_&  &6.1

HIJLV9:;9`Y?D9> &  &6.1

^NFF?P_ )/..1#

a8SV9:;9` 

)/..1#,

b_T9 )3 

V9:;9`9UO_bc;PUY?PB_ 


=CFO;D?B;CDYPCUN<B 


d;DL@CDBc;@T?W9e

fghiijkllmmmgnooihpqgrstlussvtnwvgjhjxyz{|}iwy~}fzyq~wnt~}ontnp

ghiijkllmmmgnooihpqgrstlussvtnwvgjhj

ghiijqkllmmmgongsl

ghiijqkllmmmgongsl~oprn~pr~q

zghiijqkllmmmgongslt~oprno~pr~qlo~pr~nopr~rstjw~h~qp~w~ynisw

nqqpqinr~lt~oprno~pr~oninunq~q

glqrwpjiqlrowhlo~pr~qnionlpo~grt

glqrwpjiqlrowhlrosrqlrljtgrt

|glqrwpjiqlrowhlrosrqlrjtlo~ssgrt

glqrwpjiqlrowhlrosrqlrlwgrt

f{glqrwpjiqlrowhlrosrqlrl~i~nwrhgrt

HIJKLMYP9F?PL9BECB;A;<?B;CD

 ¡¢£¤¥¦¢£§ ̈¤©¤a¤§§«

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 21-3 Filed 05/08/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 827
	





	


	


	





	







 	






!	


""


#	


$




%	


&


'	

(	
)*



+	





	


),
	


	


	


-

$./	(
.012

	





-
.%! 

	


	


-

$./	(
.012

 

	3444

56$	
%7%	


!

	3444

56$647%	


5,
8	
3+ +!+

0
39
:(	5







;9
(

45<4

:

,5(5
6&3	=>?@AB>)C5<D
>EFG>)55>HIJJKLM>NOPQRST>7:U::

>"V>W>
(5(X>9
>(
>YZ[>\]Q^_>5

&
:

""1"`90"
0
2&
6:

8"(5



+'+04	6(

6	5;+''

a%%%a90"`a"ba%%%a!a!c



"      

"d6
"

&
(
6:

/5(
:9



:5:

	9

504/6
)5
(5(


9	
	

/,`

(9(
:

"6

<(&
:(:

efghijgklfimnopq



	3444
&WW		-( +%.
(/6. /(.




	3444
&WW		



	3444
56



	3444
56a6

 

	3444
56a66a6a	6a5(
:a


a6a
&

!	
6

*


Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 21-3 Filed 05/08/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 828
	


	


	


	


	





	


 !"
#$


	


 #


%	


	$


&	


' 


(	


)$
$



*	


#
$$$


+	


),),#$


	


)-'$
$



	


$.


	

/$	
!"



%	


)$#$


%	


!)
	


%%	


	$
$

0
$
-$12	/
134

%&	




$
0
1+%&(*

%(	


	$
$

0
$
-$12	/
134

%*

	5666$$
$
$7-	
8&	


%+

	5666$$
$
$7-68&	


Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 21-3 Filed 05/08/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 829
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40500

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS MORIN-DAVILA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-774-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Morin-Davila (“Morin”) appeals his guilty-plea 

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following

deportation. Morin argues pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements of the

offense, not sentence enhancements, making those provisions

unconstitutional. Morin concedes that this argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
No. 03-40500

-2-

(1998), and he raises it for possible review by the Supreme

Court. 

Morin’s Apprendi argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235. We must follow the precedent

set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit, 231

F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation

omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

) Civil Case No. 6:23-cv-00553-JCB

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule. Upon due 

consideration, it is GRANTED. The following deadlines shall apply to the parties’ briefing in 

this matter:

Transfer briefing pursuant to the following deadlines:

• November 20, 2023—Board Motion to Transfer

• December 4, 2023—Plaintiffs’ Opposition 

• December 11, 2023—Board Reply

• December 18, 2023—Plaintiffs’ Surreply (optional)

Merits briefing pursuant to the following deadlines:

• November 13, 2023—Plaintiffs’ filed Motion for Summar Judgment (30 pages)

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 22-1 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 445
• December 18, 2023—Board Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (35 pages)

• January 16, 2024—Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Opposition to Board Motion for Summary Judgment (20 pages) 

• January 23, 2024—Board Reply (15 pages)

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 22-1 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 446
Mario BACHILLER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8737

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *United States* v. *Davis* , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019).
EXHIBIT 3

REDACTED IN ITS 

ENTIRETY

To Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-4 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 746
D.M. Indika BANDARA, Petitioner, v. Dan MANN, et al.

No. 18-9418

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.
John D. MCALLISTER, Petitioner, v. Timothy MALFITANO, et al.

No. 19-7592.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EX-10.04



 Exhibit 10.04 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 
 TO THE 

WEST CORPORATION NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (as amended and restated effective December 29, 2011) 

WHEREAS, West Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains a nonqualified
deferred compensation plan known as the “West Corporation Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan,” as amended and restated effective December 29, 2011 (the “Plan”); 

WHEREAS, the Company has reserved the power to amend the Plan in certain respects; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the amendment of the Plan to permit reallocations of investments in
the Company’s common stock upon the occurrence of a change in control of the Company. 
 NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to
the power of amendment contained in Article VIII of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 The second sentence of
Section 3.3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 An election by a Participant to
invest or not to invest his or her Deferral Account in Common Stock is an irrevocable election; provided, however, that during the 90 day period following the occurrence of a Change in Control, a Participant shall have the right to
(i) reallocate all or a portion of Participant’s Deferral Account notionally invested in Common Stock into a notional investment in any one or more Measurement Funds, and (ii) change the investment election then in effect with respect
to future amounts credited to the Participant’s Deferred Account to reduce the percentage to be notionally invested in Common Stock and increase the percentage to be notionally invested in any one or more Measurement Funds, in each case, on
such date and in such manner as determined by the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion. 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly
authorized agent on this 24th day of April, 2012. 
  

			
	WEST CORPORATION
		
	By	 	/s/ Paul Mendlik
	Name:	 	Paul Mendlik
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer



  
 2
Lavell CONERLY, Petitioner v. Willis CHAPMAN, Warden.

No. 18-9758

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 11



                       ANDRX CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             MARCH 31,
                                                       1997             1996
                                                   ----------------------------


Net loss                                            $ (1,402,500)   $  (722,400)
                                                    ============    ===========

Actual weighted average shares
    of common stock outstanding                       13,498,900     10,727,100

Impact of options granted within
    12 months of initial public offering,
    after application of the treasury method                 --          16,500
                                                    ------------    -----------

Weighted average shares of
    common stock outstanding                         13,498,900      10,743,600
                                                    ===========     ===========

Net loss per share                                  $     (0.10)    $     (0.07)
                                                    ===========     ===========
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HANSHOW TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

AND SHANGHAI HANSHI 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SES-IMAGOTAG SA, SES-IMAGOTAG 

GMBH AND CAPTANA GMBH

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:23-CV-00617-RWS-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Matthew C. Acosta of Platt Richmond PLLC hereby 

enters his appearance as Lead Counsel for Defendants VusionGroup SA, VusionGroup GMBH 

(formerly SES-IMAGOTAG SA, and SES-IMAGOTAG GMBH) and Captana GMBH

(collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-styled and numbered cause. Copies of all notices, orders, 

correspondence, and any other case-related information in this action should be provided to and 

served at the following address:

MATTHEW C. ACOSTA

Texas State Bar No. 24062577

macosta@plattrichmond.com

1201 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 150

Dallas, Texas 75207

214.559.2700 Main

214.559.4390 Fax

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 330
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE PAGE 2

Dated: April 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

PLATT RICHMOND PLLC

/s/ Matthew C. Acosta

Matthew C. Acosta

Texas Bar No. 24062577

macosta@plattrichmond.com

1201 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 150 

Dallas, Texas 75207 

214.559.2700 Main 

214.559.4390 Fax 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel for Defendants does hereby certify that this pleading was served 

on all counsel of record on April 4, 2024 by the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Matthew C. Acosta

MATTHEW C. ACOSTA

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 331
John HUMMEL, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 18-8712

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

____________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Sensor360 LLC

2:23-cv-538

Quicsolv Solutions Inc

Quicsolv Solutions Inc

c/o Hussain Jawer

10101 Southwest Freeway Ste 200 Houston, TX 77074

Rabicoff Law LLC

600 Mamaroneck Ave STE 400, Harrison, NY 10528

7736694590

11/21/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00538-JRG-RSP Document 5 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 32
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) .

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

on (date) ; or

u 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

u 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

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u 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:

0.00

Case 2:23-cv-00538-JRG-RSP Document 5 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 33
Exhibit 32.2



STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE GROUP, INC.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of International Textile Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gail A. Kuczkowski, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                |  | Date: April 30, 2014
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|/s/ Gail A. Kuczkowski                                                                          |  |                     
|Gail A. Kuczkowski                                                                              |  |                     
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |  |                     



The foregoing statement is being furnished to accompany International Textile Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document and shall not be deemed incorporated by reference into any other filing of International Textile Group, Inc. that incorporates the Report by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to International Textile Group, Inc. and will be retained by International Textile Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION 

MELISSA GRIFFIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARKET BASKET, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-29-MJT 

ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. 18] 

Plaintiff Melissa Griffin brought this suit against Defendant Market Basket alleging 

disability discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. [Dkt. 1]. The District 

Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate 

Judge, to conduct all pre-trial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend disposition on 

case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

E.D. TEX.CIV.R. 72. Pending before Judge Stetson was Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Original and Supplemental Complaints and Compel Arbitration. [Dkt. #17]. On August 9, 2024, 

Judge Stetson entered a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 18] in which she recommended (1) 

granting Defendant’s motion to compel the parties to submit the claims to arbitration, (2) denying 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as moot in light of the compelled arbitration, 

and (3) staying this proceeding pending completion of arbitration. Id. at 6. 

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 

Case 1:24-cv-00029-MJT-CLS Document 20 Filed 09/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 97
2 

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

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 

18] is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original and Supplemental 

Complaints and Compel Arbitration [Dkt. 17] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The 

Clerk is directed to STAY this case pending the completion of arbitration of Plaintiff’s claim. 

Defendant is ORDERED to notify the Court within ten (10) days of the completion of the 

arbitration regarding the status of the arbitrated claim. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 6th day of September, 2024.

Case 1:24-cv-00029-MJT-CLS Document 20 Filed 09/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 98
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MARCUS MOORE

v. 

STRIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH 

CENTER

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-602-SDJ-BD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in 

this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered 

proposed findings of fact and a recommendation (the “Report”), (Dkt. #17), that 

Defendant STRIDE Community Health Center’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Jurisdiction, (Dkt. #14), be granted. 

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no 

timely objections being filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and 

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is therefore ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #14), is GRANTED

and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Case 4:23-cv-00602-SDJ-BD Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 224
Anton PURISIMA, Petitioner, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 19-8146.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Matthew JAMISON, Petitioner, v. Levern COHEN, Warden

No. 19-5041

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.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/27/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      597,698
COMMITMENTS
  75,520   42,949  185,397  292,894  344,257  553,810  572,603   43,888   25,095

CHANGES FROM 11/20/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,272)
   1,924   -2,552     -651    2,974    7,430    4,247    4,226    3,025    3,045

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    12.6      7.2     31.0     49.0     57.6     92.7     95.8      7.3      4.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      140)
      40       25       51       65       63      130      120
```

----

Updated December 5, 2012
December 29, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMEKA MICHAEL UYAMADU, Appellant

NO’s. 14-10-00393-CR 

 14-10-00394-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, that the appellant pay all costs expended in this 

appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.