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

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15157]

[[Page 37753]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 2, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. The Thomas E. Carter, Sr. Trust and the Allison M. Carter Trust, 
Thomas E. Carter, Sr., individually and as co-trustee of both trusts, 
with Allison M. Carter, individually and as co-trustee of both trusts; 
Gwen M. Carter; Mack N. Carter; Samuel K. Carter; Sarah J. Carter; 
Thomas E. Carter, Jr.; and certain minor children in the Carter family, 
all of Park Ridge, Illinois; Mary C. Carter Seidel, Apex, North 
Carolina; Louis J. Carter, Paul P. Carter, and Geoffrey Yerke, all of 
Chicago, Illinois; and Joseph G. Carter, Arlington Heights, Illinois; 
as the Carter Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, to 
retain voting shares of Community Bank Corp., and thereby indirectly 
retain voting shares of Park Ridge Community Bank, both of Park Ridge, 
Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-15157 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
Case: 1:01-cv-09314 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/05/01 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0064

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RONALD ALAN HUMMEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until May 4, 2020 to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 30 2020

03/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0064
#### George Bundy Smith, Sr., Individually and on Behalf of Twenty Plus Members of Grace Congregational Church of Harlem, Inc./United Church of Christ, Appellant, v United Church of Christ et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 530]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered February 25, 2011, which denied plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction, dismissed all causes of action against the United Church of Christ defendants, and dismissed all causes of action except the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth against defendants Rev. Nigel Pearce, Cynthia James Rodriguez, Alethia West, and Ivy Simons brought in plaintiffs individual capacity, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from oral rulings, same court and Justice, rendered February 24, 2011, August 10, 2011, and August 29, 2011, and a decision, same court and Justice, rendered January 19, 2011, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The court properly denied pro se plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction, and correctly dismissed all causes of action against the United Church of Christ defendants, and all causes of action except the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth against defendants Rev. Nigel Pearce, Cynthia James Rodriguez, Alethia West, and Ivy Simons, which it properly ruled may be maintained only in plaintiffs individual capacity.

*582Plaintiffs purported appeals from various oral rulings of the court must be dismissed. No appeal lies from the court’s rulings in open court, as the transcripts were not “so-ordered” by the court *(see Sanchez de Hernandez v Bank of Nova Scotia,*76 AD3d 929, 931 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 705 [2011]), and a number of findings on the record were superseded by a written order from which plaintiff did not appeal. Similarly, “no appeal lies from a decision directing ‘[s]ettle order’ ” *(Hutchinson v City of New York,*18 AD3d 370 [2005]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30205(11).]
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Appeal of Provco Pinegood :

Sumneytown, LLC From The :

Decision Dated December 4, 2017 :

of The Board of Commissioners of : No. 1554 C.D. 2018

Upper Gwynedd Township :

:

Appeal of: Provco Pinegood :

Sumneytown, LLC :

O R D E R

NOW, September 23, 2019

, having considered A ppellant ’ s application

for reargument

, and A ppellee s ’ answer s in response theret o , the application is

denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
#### Thomas OJONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-2307.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 26, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Associate Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, James A. Hurley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*821Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Ojong, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Ojong’s motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(a), (c) (2011). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Ojong,*(B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2010). 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NIGEL RAY LACHEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security; UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

NEVADA, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-17095 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01438-BNW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Brenda Weksler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 19, 2023**

Before: D. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

 

Nigel Ray Lachey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application 

for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-17095 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review the 

district court’s decision de novo, Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 

2016), and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Lachey did not meet 

or equal listing 12.04 at step three of his analysis. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, 

App. 1, §§ 12.00(A)(2), 12.04. The ALJ correctly found (1) that Lachey neither 

had an extreme limitation in one area of mental functioning nor had marked 

limitations in two areas of mental functioning, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, 

App. 1, § 12.00(A)(2)(b), and (2) that Lachey did not demonstrate that he only 

marginally adjusted the requirements of daily life despite ongoing treatment, see

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(G)(2). We do not reach Lachey’s 

assertion that he meets other unspecified listings. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 

F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (declining to reach issues that are not argued 

“with any specificity”).

The ALJ also did not err by failing to develop the record, where the record 

does not indicate that Lachey’s juvenile records were relevant or that an additional 

consultative examination was necessary. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(b)(1) 

(establishing that the agency must develop the medical record only for the year 

preceding a claim “unless there is a reason to believe that development of an 

earlier period is necessary”); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459–60 (9th Cir. 
3 21-17095 

2001) (“An ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is triggered only when there is 

ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow for proper 

evaluation of the evidence.”). 

To the extent that Lachey contends the ALJ did not allow him to review 

exhibits, prevented him from raising issues and presenting witnesses, improperly 

weighed medical opinions, and failed to consider evidence, we reject the 

contentions as unsupported by the record. 

AFFIRMED.
Case: 1:02-cv-03533 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/20/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:597
Case: 1:02-cv-03533 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/20/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:598
Case: 1:02-cv-03533 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/20/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:599
Case: 1:02-cv-03533 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/20/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:600
Case: 1:02-cv-03533 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/20/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:601
# C_2019122EN.01003001.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/30

---

Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Solnova v EUIPO — Canina Pharma (BIO-INSECT Shocker)

(Case T-86/19)

(2019/C 122/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Solnova AG (Zollikon, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canina Pharma GmbH (Hamm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark BIO-INSECT Shocker — Application for registration No 14 837 553

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2018 in Case R 276/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




RealNetworks, Inc.




Amendment No. 1 to the RealNetworks, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan,

as amended and restated on June 1, 2001





	 	1.	 	A new Section 7.15 is added to the RealNetworks, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, as amended
and restated on June 1, 2001, to read as follows:






     “Section 7.15. “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary,
upon approval of the Company’s shareholders of this Section, the Administrative Committee
may provide for, and the company may implement, a one-time-only option exchange offer,
pursuant to which certain outstanding Options could, at the election of the person
holding such Option, be tendered to the Company for cancellation in exchange for the
issuance of a lesser amount of Options with a lower exercise price, provided that such
one-time-only option exchange offer is commenced within 12 months of the date of such
shareholder approval.”



          This Amendment No. 1 is effective on December 17, 2009, and was approved by the Board of
Directors of RealNetworks, Inc. on July 24, 2009 and by the shareholders of RealNetworks, Inc. on
September 21, 2009.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Lamisa Lashun Allison , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00153

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 123rd District Court of Panola County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2015

- C

0285 ). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion 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 reflect that the terms of Allison’s plea bargain was “ (5) Five Year s of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision” instead of five years ’ impri sonment. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court

. We note that the appellant, Lamisa Lashun Allison , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 29 , 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey
, Clerk
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Lamisa Lashun Allison, Appellant

No. 06-23-00153-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 123rd District Court of 

Panola County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2015-C0285). Panel consists of Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

van Cleef. 

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 reflect that the 

terms of Allison’s plea bargain was “(5) Five Years of Deferred Adjudication Community 

Supervision” instead of five years’ imprisonment. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court.

We note that the appellant, Lamisa Lashun Allison, has adequately indicated his inability 

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

RENDERED MAY 29, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2008186EN.01000601.xml

| 23.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5066 — Eurogate/APMM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 186/03)

On 5 June 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5066. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5066. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2019383EN.01005201.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/52

---

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12/07/2019 in Case T-8/16: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission

(Case C-700/19 P)

(2019/C 383/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (hereinafter refferd to as the appellants) (represented by: M. Bay, avvocato, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado, A. Aresu, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment of the General Court under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment of the General Court under appeal;

| — | annul the Commission decision in case COMP/39.639 – Optical Disk Drives at issue in so far as it concerns the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision in case COMP/39.639 – Optical Disk Drives at issue in so far as it concerns the appellants;

| — | annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants in that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants in that decision;

| — | order the Commission to bear the entirety of the costs at first instance and on appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the entirety of the costs at first instance and on appeal; and

| — | make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging errors in law as regards limbs one, two and three of the first plea at first instance, consisting of infringements of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of defence.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law in stating the legal standard for the existence of a single and continuous infringement.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence and erroneous legal standard.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with essential procedural requirements; full inadequacy of the statement of reasons supporting the rejection of the second plea, first part (lack of jurisdiction), at first instance; and errors in the legal test governing the admissibility of evidence.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 21, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00350

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.C
.,

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 01226 Honorable Richard Garcia , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. Appellant’s court

appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. We have held that in parental

- te rmination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill her ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide c onsistent procedures for all indigent litigants. In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.); see In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order terminating parental rights). In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders , appellant’s attorney has shown that she sent a letter to appellant, which explained appellant’s right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H. , No. 04

- 18

- 00153

- CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.); In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that she had enclosed copies of the brief and motion to withdraw. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re A.L.H. , 2018 WL 3861695, at *2; In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. Counsel’s letter also advised appellant that if she wished to review the appellate record, she must file a motion in this court within ten days of receiving counsel’s letter. Counsel also enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re A.L.H.
, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2; In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. If appellant desires to file a pro se brie f, we ORDER that she do so on or before September 1 0, 2020 . If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, fil ed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of August, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court