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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1797

JERRY ADAMS, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA; STATE OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-99-293-2)

Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Adams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Ramona D. Taylor, OFFICE OF

THE CITY ATTORNEY, Suffolk, Virginia; Lee Melchor Turlington,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

May 24, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on May 25, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that

the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take

as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson

v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Adams, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Adams v. City of Suffolk, No. CA-99-293-2

(E.D. Va. May 25, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-00755 CW 

 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AS MODIFIED 

Pursuant to this Court’s January 23, 2023, Order for Civil Contempt Sanctions Against 

Officers and Principals of Defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc., Docket No. 247, the officers and 

principals of Libre by Nexus, Inc., namely Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore are 

jointly and severally liable for $165,350.77, immediately due and payable to Plaintiffs as of 

February 6, 2023. 

The total amount of $165,350.77 now due and payable includes: 

1. $74,952.00 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees incurred for their November 2022 motion for 

civil contempt sanctions against Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. 

2. $34,142.60 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for their 2021 motion to enforce, plus $2,473.15 

in interest1

 from July 30, 2021, to February 6, 2023. 

3. $53,021.60 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for their August 2022 motion to hold Defendant 

Libre by Nexus, Inc., in civil contempt, plus $761.42 in interest from October 17, 2022, to 

February 6, 2023. 

1

 Interest, for the purpose of this judgment, was calculated “at a rate equal to the weekly 

average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961(a). Interest was computed daily and compounded annually. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(b). 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 249 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Class Counsel and/or Plaintiffs are authorized to collect and receive such payments 

through judgment collection and enforcement procedures, provided that they will then transfer 

these amounts to the Settlement Administrator for distribution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: 2/2/2023 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 249 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
          required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
          on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OA10 (the "Exchange Act
          periodic reports");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
          whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
          to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
          light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
          misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
          information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
          covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
          material respects; and

     5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
          for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
          assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
          securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
          Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
          have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
          disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
          10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
     provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York,
     as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2008

     /s/ Steve Bailey
     -------------------------
     Steve Bailey
     Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
     (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
     Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
David A. ROSS, petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION.

No. 12-7390.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
Kim L. VICTOR, petitioner, v. Douglas C. DOSSON, et al.

No. 12-9515.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1837

___________

Curtis R. Doyle, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Masonic Home of Missouri, other *

Glenn Means, through their interim * [UNPUBLISHED]

executive director and president of the *

board of directors, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 17, 2002

 Filed: July 22, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis R. Doyle appeals the District Court’s1

 dismissal of his employmentdiscrimination action based on Doyle’s failure to file his complaint within ninety days

after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) gave notice of his
-2-

right to sue. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (1994). Having carefully reviewed the

record, see Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 955-56 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm.

Doyle claimed that his action was timely, because mail-delivery problems

prevented him from receiving the EEOC’s May 2000 right-to-sue letter until June

2001, when an EEOC employee handed it to him. See Hill v. John Chezik Imports,

869 F.2d 1122, 1124 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that the Title VII 90-day

limitation period is subject to equitable tolling in certain circumstances). We agree

with the District Court that Doyle provided no valid basis for equitable tolling.

Among other reasons, Doyle does not dispute that he received the EEOC’s October

2000 letter stating that his Missouri Commission on Human Rights charge was being

dismissed as duplicative of his EEOC charge and that an EEOC right-to-sue letter had

been issued in May. Thus, he had notice well before June 2001 that the EEOC had

issued its right-to-sue letter in May 2000, yet he waited until September 2001 to file

his complaint. Cf. Cook v. Providence Hosp., 820 F.2d 176, 177-80 (6th Cir. 1987)

(holding that there was no basis for equitable tolling because the plaintiff testified

that she never received May 1983 right-to-sue notice, but she admitted being told in

June 1984 that notice had been issued and she waited until October 1985 before filing

suit). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
In re Samir ALLOUSH, petitioner.

No. 12-10130.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Ntc of Disassociation of Counsel 

Case No. 17-00485 WHO

n:\cxlit\li2017\171027\01297016.docx 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH, State Bar #122517 Chief Assistant City Attorney 

RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 Chief Deputy City Attorney 

YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 

TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775

MOLLIE M. LEE, State Bar #251404 

SARA J. EISENBERG, State Bar #269303 

AILEEN M. McGRATH, State Bar #280846

MATTHEW S. LEE, State Bar #295247

NEHA GUPTA, State Bar #308864 

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4602 

Telephone: (415) 554-4748 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 

E-Mail: brittany.feitelberg@sfcityatty.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ELAINE DUKE, Acting Secretary of United 

States Department of Homeland Security, 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General of the United States, DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO 

NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF 

COUNSEL 

Date Filed: January 31, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 210 Filed 08/13/18 Page 1 of 2
 

Ntc of Disassociation of Counsel 

Case No. 17-00485 WHO

1 n:\cxlit\li2017\171027\01297016.docx 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TO ALL PARTIES, THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, AND TO THIS COURT: 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken is no longer 

counsel of record for Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO in this case. 

Please remove the following from your service list. 

CHRISTINE VAN AKEN

Deputy City Attorneys

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

City Hall, Room 234 

San Francisco, California 94102-4682 

Telephone: (415) 554-4633 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4699 

E-Mail: christine.van.aken@sfcityatty.org 

The Office of the City Attorney and the remaining listed counsel remain counsel of record for 

Plaintiff CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

Dated: August 13, 2018 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH 

RONALD P. FLYNN 

YVONNE R. MERÉ 

TARA STEELEY 

MOLLIE M. LEE 

SARA J. EISENBERG 

AILEEN M. McGRATH 

MATTHEW S. LEE 

NEHA GUPTA

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/Tara Steeley 

TARA M. STEELEY 

 Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 210 Filed 08/13/18 Page 2 of 2
Edson A. VILME, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ronald Allen STUPIN, petitioner, v. Timothy E. BUSBY, Warden.

No. 12-9782.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 10.47.1

  Schedule Identifying Substantially Identical Agreements to Exhibit No. 10.47.

Various subsidiaries of the Company each entered into a loan agreement which is
substantially identical to the loan agreement filed under Exhibit 10.47. The
following table lists the borrower, lender and loan amount which differs from
that in exhibit 10.47 for each of the 18 loan agreements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           Borrower                            Lender                                    Loan Amount
           --------                            ------                                    -----------
<S>                                     <C>                                              <C>
MHC All Seasons, L.L.C.                 Bank of America, N.A.                            $   3,490,811
MHC Aspen Meadows, L.L.C.               Bank of America, N.A.                            $   5,620,224
MHC Bear Creek Village, L.L.C.          Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc.            $   4,880,000
MHC Coralwood Limited Partnership       Bank of America, N.A.                            $   6,200,000
MHC Desert Skies, L.L.C.                Bank of America, N.A.                            $   5,045,646
MHC Falcon Wood Village, L.L.C.         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association           $   5,200,000
MHC Highlands/Brentwood, L.L.C.         Bank of America, N.A.                            $  10,909,718
MHC Lake Fairways, L.L.C.               Bank of America, N.A.                            $  30,460,183
MHC Lakewood Village, L.L.C.            Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc.            $   9,817,893
MHC Mariner's Cove, L.L.C.              Bank of America, N.A.                            $  16,452,380
MHC McNicol Place, L.L.C.               Bank of America, N.A.                            $   2,710,354
MHC Oak Bend, L.L.C.                    Bank of America, N.A.                            $   5,772,214
MHC Rancho Mesa Limited Partnership     Bank of America, N.A.                            $   9,600,000
MHC Shadowbrook, L.L.C.                 Bank of America, N.A.                            $   6,320,000
MHC Sweetbriar, L.L.C.                  Bank of America, N.A.                            $   3,040,000
MHC Waterford Estates, L.L.C.           Bank of America, N.A.                            $  30,953,930
MHC Whispering Palms, L.L.C.            Bank of America, N.A.                            $   3,219,209
MHC Whispering Pines, L.L.C.            Bank of America, N.A.                            $   9,870,562
</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the
Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Trust. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
SABINE ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: August 5, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Xavier H. ESTRELLA, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 12-9653.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, denied.
Kevin D. MOORE, petitioner, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS.

No. 12-7263.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1236 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1236

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2005

 Mr. Gibbons (for himself, Mr. Porter, and Ms. Berkley) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MAYOR TONY ARMSTRONG MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mayor Tony Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor Tony 
Armstrong Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Hãy Làm Đúng 

“Tôi đã không rửa, tráng 

và vệ sinh bồn rửa.” 

“Tôi đã rửa, tráng và vệ sinh 

bồn rửa.” 

Hãy Bảo Vệ Mọi Người Ở Mọi Nơi. Luôn Rửa, Tráng và Vệ Sinh Thiết Bị Giữa Các Lần Sử Dụng.
#### Theodore WATKINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6230.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 19, 2004.

Theodore Watkins, Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims are debatable and that any *913dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir .2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watkins’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA F. INFANTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00793-MMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that the parties have agreed to a settlement of this 

cause,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's claims alleged against defendant herein 

be dismissed without prejudice; provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to 

this Court, within sixty days, with proof of service of a copy thereof on opposing counsel, 

that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over, the 

foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the 

calendar for further proceedings as appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00793-MMC Document 51 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 1
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 694 

Expressing support for the designation of July 2022 as ‘‘National Sarcoma 

Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2022 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. ROUNDS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

JULY 20, 2022 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to with an amended preamble 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of July 2022 as 

‘‘National Sarcoma Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas sarcoma is a rare cancer of the bones or connective 

tissues, such as nerves, muscles, joints, fat, and blood 

vessels, that can arise nearly anywhere in the body; 

Whereas, in the United States— 

(1) about 16,000 individuals are diagnosed with sarcoma each year; 

(2) approximately 7,200 individuals die from sarcoma each year; and 

(3) about 50,000 individuals struggle with sarcoma 

at any given time; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 694 ATS 

Whereas, each year, about 1 percent of cancers diagnosed in 

adults and around 15 percent of cancers diagnosed in 

children are sarcoma; 

Whereas more than 70 subtypes of sarcoma have been identified; 

Whereas the potential causes of sarcoma are not well understood; 

Whereas treatment for sarcoma can include surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy; 

Whereas sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; 

and 

Whereas July 2022 would be an appropriate month to designate as National Sarcoma Awareness Month— 

(1) to raise awareness about sarcoma; and 

(2) to encourage more individuals in the United 

States to get properly diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation 

2 of July 2022 as ‘‘National Sarcoma Awareness Month’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS