alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 10-K

                  Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

                     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                   For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998

Commission File Number 0-16627

                      SHEARSON SELECT ADVISORS FUTURES FUND
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

            Delaware                                       13-3405705     
 State or other jurisdiction of                          (I.R.S.Employer
incorporation or organization)                          Identification No.)

                    c/o Smith Barney Futures Management Inc.
                           390 Greenwich St. - 1st Fl.
                           New York, New York 10013 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              (Address and Zip Code of principal executive offices)

                              (212) 723-5424                               
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:  None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  Units
                                                             of Limited
                                                             Partnership
                                                             Interest
                                                             (Title of Class)

  Indicate  by check  mark  whether  the  registrant  (1) has filed all  reports
  required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
  1934  during the  preceding  12 months (or for such  shorter  period  that the
  registrant  was  required to file such  reports),  and (2) has been subject to
  such filing requirements for the past 90 days.


                                    Yes X No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant toItem 405 of
Regulation S-K is not contained herein,  and will not be contained,  to the best
of  registrant's  knowledge,  in  definitive  proxy  or  information  statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this
form 10-K [X]

As of  February  28,  1999  Limited  Partnership  Units  with an aggregate value
of  $5,249,881  were  outstanding  and held by non-affiliates.


                       DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
                                      NONE
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 71ST DISTRICT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd 

day of May, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Thomas Lance Beloney, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-15-00007-CR

Trial Court No. 14-0158X

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to (1) to reflect that the offense 

of conviction was a third degree felony offense, (2) to reflect that Thomas Lance Beloney pled true 

to the allegations of the two enhancement paragraphs, and (3) by deleting the letters “TBD” and 

substituting an assessment of $0.00 for attorney fees. As modified, the judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Thomas Lance Beloney, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 20th day of July, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          47,674
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,009
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    207,183
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          52,392
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            52,099
<LOANS>                                        663,844
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,059,374
<DEPOSITS>                                     892,432
<SHORT-TERM>                                    25,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,633
<LONG-TERM>                                     34,291
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,674
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,059,374
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 52,087
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,627
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                67,714
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              27,201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,596
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           37,917
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      420
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 830
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 48,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,163
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,239
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,239
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.189
<LOANS-NON>                                        325
<LOANS-PAST>                                       751
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,961
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,070
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      521
<RECOVERIES>                                       205
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,174
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,174
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,071


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

** 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40063 Conference Calendar

ROBERTO MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JONATHON DOBRE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:1-CV-727

-------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roberto Martinez, federal prisoner No. 28733-077, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 365-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of methamphetamine in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey

. ** Although Martinez proceeded
pro se in the district court, he is represented by attorney Joel David Vera on appeal. Counsel argues that the indictment wasNo. 02-40063 -2- fatally defective because it did not put Martinez on notice of the quantity of drugs on which his sentence would be based. Martinez’s sentence of 365 months imprisonment does not violate Apprendi because it is within the statutory maximum for the offense to which he entered a guilty plea. United States v. Keith , 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1182 (2001); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A)(vii); 21 U.S.C. § 846. Furthermore, Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review and an Apprendi claim does not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255's savings clause. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX , 305 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2002). Counsel raises four additional arguments not raised in the district court: that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether the Government’s decision not to file a U.S.S.G. § 5k1.1 motion was made in good faith; and that the trial court erred at sentencing by denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, by finding that Martinez had a leadership role in the offense, and by holding Martinez responsible for 200 pounds of methamphetamine. In addition to the fact that the foregoing issues were not presented to the district court for consideration, we note that the three sentencing arguments are barred by the waiver provision of Martinez’s plea agreement and that none of the arguments are cognizable under § 2241. Counsel is CAUTIONED that he has a dutyNo. 02-40063 -3- not to raise frivolous arguments on appeal. See United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). Counsel has abandoned Martinez’s district-court arguments that the Government breached the plea agreement by offering evidence of excessive drug quantities and that the district court erroneously departed upward when it increased Martinez’s offense level based on his leadership role in the offense. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
#### Harold *v.*Iron Silver Min. Co.

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

January 4, 1888.)

Removal of Causes—District Where Suit may be Brought—Act of March 8, 1887.

An action was brought in a state court oí Colorado, in which the plaintiff was an alien, and the defendant a New York corporation. On application to docket the cause in the United States circuit court for the district of Colorado, *held*that, under the act of 1887, (34 St. 553,) which provides (hat a suit between citizens of different states shall be brought only in the district where either the plaintiff or defendant resides, the case was not transferable.

Application to Docket Case.

The plaintiff, Mary Harold, brought suit in the district court of Colorado for Lake county against the Iron Silver Mining Company for damages. Defendant made application to said court to remove the cause to the United States circuit court, which was denied. Defendant then applied to the United States circuit court for leave to docket said cause.

*Charles D. May,*for plaintiff.

*Frank W. Owens,*for defendant.

Hallett, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in the district court of Lake county for damages resulting from the death of her son through defendant’s negligence, while the son was at work in defendant’s mine. The suit is founded on a statute of the state. Alleging that it is a New York corporation, and that plaintiff is a citizen of Great Britain, residing in Ireland, defendant applied in apt time to the district court to remove the cause into this court, and the petition was denied. Defendant now asks to docket the case in this court, and to proceed with it here as properly within the jurisdiction of this court. Th.e question is whether a suit between an alien, residing abroad, and a citizen of New York, may be removed from a court of the state into this court on petition of defendant. In *Mining Co.*v. *Markell, ante,*386, it was held that under the act of 1887, (24 St. 552,) a suit between citizens of different states may be brought only in the district where the plaintiff resides, or where the defendant resides. The same limitation appears to be applicable to a suit between an alien and a citizen of a state. As neither the plaintiff nor defendant is a citizen or resident of the state of Colorado, this court has not jurisdiction of the case. The petition to remove was properly denied in the district court of the state, and the application to docket the cause in this court must be denied. The circuit judge concurs,
@conference{1214931,
  author = {Zhelun Chen and Yicheng Li and Jin Wen and Liang Chung Lo and Gabriel Grajewski and Zheng O'Neill and Amanda Pertzborn and Vance (Wm.) Payne and Steven T. Bushby},
  title = {A Simulation Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Stochastic Occupant Behaviors on Demand Flexibility in Typical Commercial Buildings},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-27 04:06:00},
  publisher = {2023 ASHRAE Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936432},
  language = {en},
}
Dec,.- cUr^

'7 ^ftlUh c,f-f.rney)

I httci +K-J d«,ft f-or p„f^/t, ef dcH''~'-' -J WU* +Ut U-IX ^c„tk

fcr.'.d fa KU „,y 115N ^ ^ K„W c.,.fJ, ^.^ ^d e^,„

v>c.i refund o,c c, c0f^ o(. ^ j.c^t4. Att.j. -CC|„/t/,0. o^-|l- 00«43. CR.

4-r -H-j Two, fU,u jc.J ~e ,, c.fy flf ^ d„ c(c£ f ,Utef , x(l ^;,

RECEIVED IN O.^ 6 ^fr:'* ,61^11

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS H'.^cl o*.*

, ^f JUL 202015 xc,^r-Mao5H

Abe!Acoste,Clerk irw

cc.U
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - August 2002 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments August 2002 

Total 

Retired employees 

Spouses and divorced spouses 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 

Other survivors 

August 2001 

$724,770,000 $698,396,000 

458,484,000 440,322,000 

88,311,000 86,315,000 

21,423,000 21,014,000 

156,552,000 150,745,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 644,600 ......... 2,800 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 298,000 $1,527 1,300 $2,165 ......... 

Age 216,400 1,492 2 600 2 2,539 3 $1,154 

Disability, age 65 and over 37,000 1,363 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, under age 65 44,500 1,836 400 2,043 

Spouses and divorced spouses 151,300 577 800 715 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 166,200 941 600 1,298 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,225 4/ 1,187 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,200 630 100 704 

Children 12,800 729 100 990 

Other survivors 100 614 ......... ......... ......... 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

Monthly benefits August 2002

Being Paid Awarded 

......... 

......... 

$880 

......... 

627 641 

819 887 

432 329 

......... 

5/ / 

574 586 

834 711 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

August August 

2002 2001 Number Average 

$5,565,000 $5,653,000 132,200 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

700 $41 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 300

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

August 2002 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 3,300 $256.65 

Sickness 7,400 256.60 

Unemployment 

Sickness 

Average payment 

Per 

full week 

$459.61 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

458.59 

August 2002 

Benefit payments 

August 2001 

Total $6,941,000 $8,394,000 

2,827,000 2,611,000 

4,114,000 5,783,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-551
In Re: JULIUS S. BAKER, SR., Reverend, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-741-3-17BC) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julius S. Baker, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on his complaint. We find no unreasonable delay in this case. Therefore, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition and the amended petition. We further deny Petitioner’s motions for bail pending appeal and his “Motion for Extraordinary Emergency Immediate Relief and Release from the Unlawful Restraint on Petitioner[’s] Liberty.” We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### The State ex rel. Englemon, Appellant, *v.*Queen City Barrel Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel Co.,*Ill Ohio St.3d 262, 2006-Ohio-5700.]

(No. 2005-2133

Submitted September 19, 2006

Decided November 15, 2006.)

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

*263Butkovich, Crosthwaite & Gast Co., L.P.A., Daryl A.W. Crosthwaite, and Stephen P. Gast, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Derrick L. Knapp, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Part II – Establishment of Employee Records

Chapter 5: Employee's Protest of Service and Compensation Record

1

Protest Form

An employee who believes the amount of service and/or compensation reported for his or her 

record is incorrect should file a Form G-70, Protest of Record of Service Months and 

Compensation, with the Railroad Retirement Board. Forms G-70 are available from any local 

field office of the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), or employers may requisition them from 

the Bureau of Supply and Service, to provide to their employees. Requisitions are made using 

Form G-615.

Employee Protests to Employer

If an employee contacts the employer about the service and compensation reported on Form BA6, the employer may handle the protest directly or may advise the employee to file a Form G-70 

with the RRB.

Form GL-129

Upon receipt of Form G-70, or any other written protest of record, from an employee, the RRB 

will release Forms GL-129 and GL-129a to the employer. The employer must either correct the 

record with a Form BA-4 or verify that the account is correct as reported. If the account is 

correct as reported, a brief explanation refuting the employee's claim is needed in order for the 

RRB to reply to the employee.

The following are common reasons that explain differences in service and compensation reported 

by the employer and that claimed by the employee:

 The employee claims service month credit for the months the employee worked but 

the employer incorrectly credited service only for the months in which compensation 

was paid. Compensation was correctly reported. The employer should file Form BA-4 

to report service for the months the employee worked. 

 The employee claims compensation credit for the year in which compensation was 

earned, but the employer reports compensation generally when paid. This protest 

should be considered a request by the employee to have his compensation adjusted to 

an earned basis, and a Form BA-4 should be filed. See Part IV Chapter 1 for an 

explanation of reporting on an earned basis. See Part VII Chapter 1 for instructions on 

completing Form BA-4. 

 The employee earned more than the maximum creditable compensation. 

An explanation is important because an employee has reconsideration rights in protesting his or 

her record if he or she still believes the record is still incorrect, after our reply.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14917]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0150]


Medical Review Board (MRB) Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of correction.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA notes two corrections on the Federal Register notice 
announcing the Medical Review Board meeting scheduled for July 1, 2009 
from 9 a.m.-4:20 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 
Programs, 202-366-4001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    On June 12, 2009, FMCSA published a Notice in the Federal Register 
announcing a public meeting of the Medical Review Board to be held on 
July 1, 2009 (74 FR 28093). The notice included two incorrect Web 
sites. The first one is http://Docketinfo.dot.gov; the correct Web site 
is http://www.regulations.gov. The second error was http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mrb; the correct Web site is http://mrb.fmcsa.dot.gov.

    Issued on: June 18, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-14917 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P