alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/28/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      376,043
COMMITMENTS
 108,155  173,659   82,545  163,118   96,046  353,818  352,250   22,225   23,793

CHANGES FROM 01/21/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -40,913)
 -20,393  -19,195    1,217  -21,742  -22,384  -40,918  -40,362        5     -551

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    28.8     46.2     22.0     43.4     25.5     94.1     93.7      5.9      6.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      167)
      59       53       73       35       35      137      133
```

----

Updated January 31, 2014
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Wave Systems Corp.(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

| Dated: March 16, 2007  | /s/ STEVEN K. SPRAGUE    |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        | Name: Steven K.  Sprague |
|                        | Chief Executive  Officer |
|                        |                     |
| Dated:  March 16, 2007 | /s/ GERARD T. FEENEY     |
|                        | Name: Gerard T.  Feeney  |
|                        | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) andis not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separatedisclosure document.

A signed original of the written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Wave Systems Corp. and will be retainedby Wave Systems Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
Lee Dale LOFTON, Jr., Petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 19-6928.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2020345EN.01011201.xml

| 16.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/112

---

P8_TA(2018)0390

EU-Antigua and Barbuda Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 October 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver (12383/2017 — C8-0174/2018 — 2017/0171(NLE))

(Consent)

(2020/C 345/25)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12383/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12383/2017),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver (12382/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver (12382/2017),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0174/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0174/2018),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0305/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0305/2018),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Antigua and Barbuda. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
```

```

----

Updated March 28, 2014
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00088-CR

PHILLIP LEON WORTHEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th District Court

Titus County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR19529

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter,* JJ.

_______________________________

*Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
2

O R D E R

Phillip Leon Worthey appeals from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentencing him to ten years’ incarceration. On 

appeal, Worthey challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate his guilt, and the State 

concedes that the trial court was without jurisdiction to act. Assuming that the State’s 

concession is based on a correct interpretation of the law, the resolution of this case could lead to 

the release of an improperly imprisoned man. In light of this possibility, we find it necessary to 

take steps to expedite the decision in this case.

Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states, “On a party’s motion or on its 

own initiative an appellate court may—to expedite a decision or for other good cause—suspend a 

rule’s operation in a particular case and order a different procedure . . . .” TEX. R. APP. P. 2. We 

find that good cause exists to invoke Rule 2, which we utilize to suspend, in this particular case, 

the notice requirements of Rule 39.8 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 39.8. We hereby withdraw the submission date of January 24, 2022. This case will be 

submitted to the panel of Chief Justice Josh Morriss, Justice Scott Stevens, and Justice Jack 

Carter (retired, sitting by assignment) on January 7, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

DATE: January 6, 2022
# C_2017356EN.01002401.xml

| 21.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/24

---

Corrigendum to notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of new and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries originating in the People’s Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 264 of 11 August 2017
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 264 of 11 August 2017

(2017/C 356/11)

On page 14, point ‘2. Product under investigation’:

for:

for:

‘The product subject to this investigation is certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries (or “new and retreaded tyres”) (“the product under investigation”).’,

read:

read:

‘The product subject to this investigation is certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 (or “new and retreaded tyres”) (“the product under investigation”).’;

on page 14, point ‘3. Allegation of dumping’

for:

for:

‘The product allegedly being dumped is the product under investigation, originating in the People’s Republic of China (“the country concerned”), currently falling within CN code(s) 4011 20 90 and 4012 12 00. These CN codes are given for information only.’,

read:

read:

‘The product allegedly being dumped is the product under investigation, originating in the People’s Republic of China (“the country concerned”), currently falling within CN codes 4011 20 90 and ex 4012 12 00. These CN codes are given for information only.’.

---
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-1244 DONALD N. CREIGHTON, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. TIMOTHY HALL, SUPERINTENDENT OF MCI NORFOLK; THOMAS REILLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS,

Respondents, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of the Court issued on November 6, 2002, is amended as follows:

On p.14, last line of footnote 4, insert "1st. Cir." within parentheses before 2002; thus, (1st Cir. 2002).
EXHIBIT 4

REDACTED IN ITS 

ENTIRETY

To Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 52-5 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 840
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

DEREK CLINTON WARD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23cv193

JASON BRIDGES §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Derek Clinton Ward, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter was

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

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

 Procedural Background

On May 28, 2024, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing

fee. Plaintiff was given 30 days to comply with the court’s order. The time for complying with the

order has expired. However, plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee, shown good cause

for failing to do so or otherwise contacted the court. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

By failing to comply with the order described above, plaintiff has failed to diligently

prosecute this case. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Case 9:23-cv-00193-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 07/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 24
Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 8th day of July, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00193-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      14,624,538
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,023,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 21,154,014
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,469,629
<PP&E>                                      69,557,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             143,964,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,426,452
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       260,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 124,277,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               143,964,696
<SALES>                                     86,115,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,115,950
<CGS>                                       45,957,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,957,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,585,425
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (333,175)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,927,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,233,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         17,693,608
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                17,693,608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Marc Norman SILBERMAN.

No. D-3047.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Marc Norman Silberman, of Cleveland, Ohio, 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.
Brandon J. LOFLAND, Petitioner, v. Connie HORTON, Warden.

No. 19-7431.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Rachel Joanna EVENS, Petitioner, v. Timothy John EVENS.

No. 19-1236.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Dakota denied.
EXHIBIT 10.10.BG


 


DEBT CONVERSION AGREEMENT


 


THIS DEBT
CONVERSION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of
the 13th day of October, 2003, by and between ANTHONY M. FRANK, TTEE, ANTHONY M. FRANK
DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, UNDER AGREEMENT DATED 12/01/98, FBO:  SHIRLEY M. PEGG, (hereinafter
referred to as “Buyer”) and ELECTROPURE, INC., a California corporation
(hereinafter referred to as “Electropure” or the “Company”).


 


R
E C I T A L S


 


WHEREAS, Buyer loaned the Company Four Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($400,000) under the terms of that certain 8% Convertible Term
Note dated September 16, 2001 (the “Term Note”).


 


WHEREAS, as of September 30, 2003, a total of
$8,000.00 in interest accrued under the above Term Note is due and payable to
Buyer by the Company.


 


WHEREAS, Buyer wishes to convert all of the
interest accrued on the Term Note through September 30, 2003 into shares of
Electropure, Inc. Common Stock and the Company wishes to issue such shares to
extinguish the debt owed Buyer.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing and of the mutual obligations herein contained, it is agreed as
follows:


 


1.             CONVERSION


 


(a)           On
the effective date set forth above, Buyer hereby converts all of the $8,000.00
in interest accrued on the Term Note into Shares of Electropure, Inc. Common
Stock, $0.01 par value, at an effective conversion rate of $0.30 per share, for
a total of 26,667 Shares (the “Shares”).


 


(b)           The
Shares shall have the rights, preferences, privileges, restrictions and other terms
set forth in the By-laws of the Company.


 


(c)           Upon
conversion hereby and pursuant to the Debt Conversion Agreement previously
entered into between the parties, Buyer acknowledges that all interest accrued
and due through December 31, 2003 pursuant to the terms of the 8% Convertible
Term Note entered into between the parties on September 16, 2002, has been
satisfied in full and that any default by Electropure for failure to pay
interest due on the Term Note through September 30, 2003 has been cured.


 


2.             REPRESENTATIONS
AND WARRANTIES OF BUYER           Buyer
represents and warrants to the Company:


 


(a)           The
Shares are being acquired by Buyer for investment for an indefinite period, for
Buyer’s own account, not as a nominee or agent, and not with a view to the sale
or distribution of any part thereof, and the Buyer has no present intention of
selling, granting participations in, or
In the Senate of the United States, 

August 1, 2014. 

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H.J. Res. 76) entitled ‘‘Joint resolution making 

continuing appropriations for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.’’, 

do pass with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

Strike all after the first word, and insert: 

1 the following sum is appropriated, out of any money 

2 in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal 

3 year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, 

4 namely: 

5 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

6 PROCUREMENT 

7 PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

8 For an additional amount for ‘‘Procurement, Defense9 Wide’’, $225,000,000, to remain available until September 
2 

† HJ 76 EAS 

1 30, 2015, which shall be for the Secretary of Defense to pro2 vide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the 

3 Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket 

4 threats: Provided, That such funds shall be transferred im5 mediately only through an exchange of letters to address 

6 emergent operations in support of Operation Protective 

7 Edge, notwithstanding section 3.1.3.2.1 of the U.S.-Israel 

8 Iron Dome Procurement Agreement: Provided further, That 

9 nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to apply to 

10 previously appropriated funds for the procurement of Iron 

11 Dome: Provided further, That such amount is designated 

12 by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 

13 section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emer14 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

15 This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency 

16 Supplemental Appropriations Resolution, 2014’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill making an 

emergency supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2014, to provide funding to Israel 

for the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range 

rocket threats.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 76 

AMENDMENTS
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/20/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       73,799
COMMITMENTS
     478   11,346    2,437   70,884   55,963   73,799   69,746        0    4,053

CHANGES FROM 05/13/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,538)
    -216   -3,083      208    3,546    2,538    3,538     -337        0    3,875

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     0.6     15.4      3.3     96.1     75.8    100.0     94.5      0.0      5.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       34)
       2        9        6       15       21       22       31`

---

Updated May 23, 2014
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7613

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ANTHONY RASHON BARNES, Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cr - 00313

- D

- 2 )

Submitted : June 21, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021

Before MOTZ an d WYNN , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Rashon Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORN E Y, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Rashon Barnes appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and his motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discreti on in denying Barnes’ motions. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Barnes , No. 5:17

- cr - 00313

- D

- 2 (E.D.N.C. Aug . 17, 2020; Oct. 13, 2020). 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