alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/02/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      507,131
COMMITMENTS
  57,118   15,332  115,415  307,143  354,937  479,676  485,684   27,455   21,446

CHANGES FROM 07/26/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      9,486)
 -10,778   -1,395    5,101   12,045    3,728    6,367    7,434    3,119    2,052

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.3      3.0     22.8     60.6     70.0     94.6     95.8      5.4      4.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      131)
      35       19       39       68       66      120      111
```

----

Updated August 5, 2011
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60485 Summary Calendar

__________________ JORGE GUADALUPE ELIZONDO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

A36 596 086
- - - - - - - - - - March 21, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Guadalupe Elizondo-Chapa asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider and reopen the denial of his application for waiver of deportability; 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Elizondo contends that the BIA erred in giving deferential review to the Immigration Judges's (IJ) credibility determinations, rather than conducting a de novoreview of the record. Elizondo contends that the proceedings should be reopened to present evidence thatNo. 95-60485 -2- his testimony was credible and that he is genuinely rehabilitated. The BIA conducted an independent review of the record, balanced the equities, and concluded that Elizondo's many outstanding equities were outweighed by his criminal record and the evidence indicating a lack of genuine rehabilitation. See Osuchukwu v. I.N.S. , 744 F.2d 1136, 1141 (5th Cir. 1984)(holding that the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The BIA will not grant a motion to reopen to consider a § 212(c) application because an alien under a final deportation order loses his lawful permanent resident status and is thus no longer eligible for relief because he lacks the required seven years consecutive, unrelinquished domicile. Rivera v. I.N.S. , 810 F.2d 540, 541-42 (5th Cir. 1987); Ghassan v. I.N.S. , 972 F.2d 631, 635 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 1412 (1992). The petition for review is DENIED.
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 Annual Report of Bluepoint Linux Software Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, Xin Liu, and Jun Liu, President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively,
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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







/s/ Xin Liu


Xin
Liu,


President


September
9, 2008







/s/  Jun Liu


Jun
Liu,


Chief
Financial Officer


September
9, 2008
Peter CRUZ, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 18-5669.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1982

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located at

125 Brookley Drive, Rome, New York, as the ‘‘Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27, 1999

Mr. BOEHLERT (for himself, Mr. KING, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr.

WALSH, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. WEINER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr.

HINCHEY, Mr. QUINN, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. MEEKS of New

York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. FORBES, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. LAZIO, Mr.

FOSSELLA, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. REYNOLDS,

Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr.

CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. RANGEL, and

Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located at 125 Brookley Drive, Rome, New York,

as the ‘‘Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1982 IH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

2 OUTPATIENT CLINIC, ROME, NEW YORK.

3 The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic

4 located at 125 Brookley Drive, Rome, New York, shall

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and

6 designated as the ‘‘Donald J. Mitchell Department of Vet7 erans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. Any reference to such

8 outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, map, document,

9 record, or other paper of the United States shall be consid10 ered to be a reference to the Donald J. Mitchell Depart11 ment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

Æ
# Úřední věstník C 17/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 17 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 6513. ledna 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 17

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 6513. ledna 2022

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informace |
| | INFORMACE ORGÁNŮ, INSTITUCÍ A JINÝCH SUBJEKTŮ EVROPSKÉ UNIE |
| | Evropská komise |
| 2022/C 17/01 | Směnné kurzy vůči euru — 12. ledna 2022 | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informace

INFORMACE ORGÁNŮ, INSTITUCÍ A JINÝCH SUBJEKTŮ EVROPSKÉ UNIE

Evropská komise

2022/C 17/01

Směnné kurzy vůči euru — 12. ledna 2022

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

IV Informace

INFORMACE ORGÁNŮ, INSTITUCÍ A JINÝCH SUBJEKTŮ EVROPSKÉ UNIE

Evropská komise

| 13.1.2022 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 17/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2022

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 17/1

---

Směnné kurzy vůči euru (1)

12. ledna 2022

(2022/C 17/01)

1 euro =

| | měna | směnný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | americký dolar | 1,1370 |
| JPY | japonský jen | 131,19 |
| DKK | dánská koruna | 7,4414 |
| GBP | britská libra | 0,83338 |
| SEK | švédská koruna | 10,2640 |
| CHF | švýcarský frank | 1,0486 |
| ISK | islandská koruna | 147,00 |
| NOK | norská koruna | 9,9270 |
| BGN | bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | česká koruna | 24,423 |
| HUF | maďarský forint | 355,98 |
| PLN | polský zlotý | 4,5359 |
| RON | rumunský lei | 4,9453 |
| TRY | turecká lira | 15,5922 |
| AUD | australský dolar | 1,5762 |
| CAD | kanadský dolar | 1,4261 |
| HKD | hongkongský dolar | 8,8630 |
| NZD | novozélandský dolar | 1,6775 |
| SGD | singapurský dolar | 1,5358 |
| KRW | jihokorejský won | 1 353,27 |
| ZAR | jihoafrický rand | 17,5645 |
| CNY | čínský juan | 7,2379 |
| HRK | chorvatská kuna | 7,5240 |
| IDR | indonéská rupie | 16 295,93 |
| MYR | malajsijský ringgit | 4,7595 |
| PHP | filipínské peso | 58,080 |
| RUB | ruský rubl | 84,7559 |
| THB | thajský baht | 37,936 |
| BRL | brazilský real | 6,3458 |
| MXN | mexické peso | 23,1852 |
| INR | indická rupie | 84,0285 |

měna

směnný kurz

USD

americký dolar

1,1370

JPY

japonský jen

131,19

DKK

dánská koruna

7,4414

GBP

britská libra

0,83338

SEK

švédská koruna

10,2640

CHF

švýcarský frank

1,0486

ISK

islandská koruna

147,00

NOK

norská koruna

9,9270

BGN

bulharský lev

1,9558

CZK

česká koruna

24,423

HUF

maďarský forint

355,98

PLN

polský zlotý

4,5359

RON

rumunský lei

4,9453

TRY

turecká lira

15,5922

AUD

australský dolar

1,5762

CAD

kanadský dolar

1,4261

HKD

hongkongský dolar

8,8630

NZD

novozélandský dolar

1,6775

SGD

singapurský dolar

1,5358

KRW

jihokorejský won

1 353,27

ZAR

jihoafrický rand

17,5645

CNY

čínský juan

7,2379

HRK

chorvatská kuna

7,5240

IDR

indonéská rupie

16 295,93

MYR

malajsijský ringgit

4,7595

PHP

filipínské peso

58,080

RUB

ruský rubl

84,7559

THB

thajský baht

37,936

BRL

brazilský real

6,3458

MXN

mexické peso

23,1852

INR

indická rupie

84,0285

---

(1)  Zdroj: referenční směnné kurzy jsou publikovány ECB.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4688 

To limit the use of nondisclosure agreements for employees of the White 

House or the Executive Office of the President, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To limit the use of nondisclosure agreements for employees 

of the White House or the Executive Office of the President, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONDISCLOSURE 

4 AGREEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE 

5 WHITE HOUSE OR THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE 

6 OF THE PRESIDENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—An officer or employee of the 

8 White House or the Executive Office of the President may 

9 not be required to sign any nondisclosure agreement. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4688 IH

1 (b) LIMITATION ON ENFORCEMENT.—No Federal 

2 funds may be used to enforce any nondisclosure agreement 

3 entered into by an officer or employee of the White House 

4 or the Executive Office of the President. 

5 (c) APPLICATION.—This Act shall not be construed 

6 to allow the disclosure of any information otherwise re7 quired by law, rule, or regulation to be kept secret in the 

8 interest of national security. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

IN RE: TAASERA LICENSING LLC

PATENT LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO 

ALL CASES

Civil Action No. 2:22-md-03042-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

TAASERA LICENSING LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00113-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE

Defendant Palo Alto Networks hereby notifies the Court that it has served its Patent L.R. 

3-3 Invalidity Contentions and Subject Matter Ineligibility Contentions on all counsel of record

via electronic mail on April 29, 2023.

Dated: May 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa Richards Smith

Texas State Bar No. 24001351

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, TX 75670

Telephone: 903-934-8450

Facsimile: 903-934-9257

Case 2:23-cv-00113-JRG Document 27 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 482
2

Kelly C. Hunsaker

KHunsaker@winston.com

California Bar No. 168307

Michael R. Rueckheim

Texas Bar No. 24081129

MRueckheim@winston.com

Eimeric Reig-Plessis

EReigPlessis@winston.com

California Bar No. 321273

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 520 

Redwood City, CA 94065

Telephone: (650) 858-6500

Facsimile: (650) 858-6550

Attorneys for Defendant Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on May 1, 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

above and foregoing document has been served on counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00113-JRG Document 27 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 483
Exhibit








AMENDMENT
TO THE SAVINGS INSTITUTE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
SPLIT DOLLAR LIFE INSURANCE AGREEMENT


This Amendment to the Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreement with the individuals noted on Exhibit A hereto (the “Employee”) is executed on the 18th day of December, 2007, by the Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company (the “Bank”) and the Employee.


WITNESSETH THAT:


WHEREAS, the Bank entered into a Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreement with the Employee effective December 18th, 2007 (the “Agreement”); and 


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank wishes to amend the Agreement to clarify the definition of Compensation that is to be used to determine the Employee’s benefit under the Agreement; and


WHEREAS, Article V of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended from time to time by a written instrument signed by both the Bank and the Employee.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Agreement shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows:


Effective December 18, 2007, Section B (iii) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Section B (iii):


“(iii)    For purposes of this Agreement, “Compensation” shall mean the average of the Employee’s three (3) highest years of Compensation for the calendar years preceding the Employee’s termination date.  For purposes of determining “Compensation” under this Agreement, the Bank shall apply the definition of compensation under the Bank’s 401(k) Plan at the time the amount of a Participant’s benefit is being determined; provided, however, that Compensation shall be determined without regard to any limitation on the maximum dollar amount of compensation taken into account under the Bank’s 401(k) Plan pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a) (17) or any similar provision of law.”
  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved this Amendment to the Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company Split Dollar Insurance Agreement with the Employee and the parties to this Agreement have executed this written instrument as of the date first written above.




ATTEST:                   SAVINGS INSTITUTE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY                            




/s/ Laurie Gervais                                    By:    /s/ Roger Engle             
Chairman of the Compensation Committee


ATTEST:                    




/s/ Laurie Gervais__________________    By:    /s/ Rheo Brouillard_____________
[Insert name of Employee]    











Exhibit A


Rheo A. Brouillard
Brian Hull
Sonia Dudas
Michael Moran
Laurie Gervais
Alvin Gaitan BENITEZ, aka Pesadilla, aka Lil Pesadilla, aka Lil Tuner, aka Tooner, aka Lil Tunnel, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6186.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jessica WANG, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18M119.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD 

NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 

PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

Derrick J. Miles, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001997

Lower Court Case No. 2013-CP-08-02847

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Berkeley County

The Honorable Roger E. Henderson, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2017-MO-012

Submitted May 31, 2017 – Filed June 21, 2017

REMANDED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of 

Columbia, for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney 

General Alicia A. Olive, both of Columbia, for 

Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his 

application for post-conviction relief. The petition for a writ of certiorari is 

granted. We dispense with further briefing and direct the court of general sessions 

to determine if, in its discretion, petitioner should be given credit for time served 

on house arrest. See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-40 (Supp. 2016) (stating sentence 

credit "may be given for any time spent under monitored house arrest"). 

REMANDED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., 

concur.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 04 7

- C V

Style: In re MarOpCo, Inc.

Date motion filed * : February 19, 2016

Type of motion: Motion for Permission to Participate P ro H ac V ice

Party filing motion: Counsel for Amicus Curiae , Finley L. Hill i ard

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

The motion for permission to participate pro hac vice is denied. The motion is not accompanied by the proof of

payment or proof of indigency acknowledgement issued by the Texas Board of Law Examiners. See T EX

. G OV ’ T

.

C ODE A NN § 82.0361 (Vernon 2013 ) (providing for non

- resident attorney fee); T EX

. R ULES G OVERN

. B AR

A DM ’ N R. XIX(a) (requiring compliance with section 82.0361 as “initial mandatory requirement”); (c) (requiring

non

- resident attorney’s motion to include proof of payment or proof of indigency acknowledgement). Further the

motion is not accompanied by “the motion of the resident practicing attorney Texas attorney with whom the non

resident attorney will be associating.” T EX

. R ULES G OVERN

. B AR A DM ’ N XIX( b).

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 for the Court

Date: March 3, 2016
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1960** 

GAIL B. SPARROW; VICTOR H. SPARROW, III , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC.; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; THE FISHER LAW GROUP, PLLC , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv - 00388

- JFM )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: May 4, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gail B. Sparrow , Victor H. Sparrow, III, Appellants Pro Se. Craig Robert Haughton, Jessica Erin Morrison, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Monica E. W ebb, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jeffrey Barry Fisher, Martin Stuart Goldberg, FISHER LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gail B. Sparrow and Vi ctor H. Sparrow, III (together, “Sparrows”) , appeal the district court ’ s order s granting
Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) , and denying related motions for judicial notice

. * On appeal, we con fine our review to the issues raised in the Appellants ’ brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because the Sparrow s’ informal brief does not sufficiently challenge the bas e s for the district court’s disposition s , the Sparrows arguably have forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. In any event , w e have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
denial of relief. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in failing to address the Sparrows’ request for leave
to amend t he complaint, which they presented only in a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b), 15(a) ;

* Appellee the Fisher Law Group, PLLC (“Fisher”) has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Victor Sparrow alone signed the notice of appeal and Gail Sparrow did not. We deny the motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2). See Becker v. Montgomery , 532 U.S. 757, 766

- 67 (2001). In so doing, we conclude that Fisher’s reliance on Picking v. Yates , 288 A.2d 146 (Md. 1972), is misplaced. We deny Fisher’s subsequent motion to strike a letter filed by Gail Sparrow regarding her status as a party to the appeal because the letter does not prejudice Fisher’s rights in any way

.3 Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm. Inc. , 549 F.3d 618, 630

- 31 (4th Cir. 2008)

. Accordingly , we affirm . We deny the Sparrows’ motions for judicial notice filed in this court and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD; 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC.; and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO. LTD., 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE, 

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics 

Company, Ltd.’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Move, Answer or Otherwise Respond 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court, having considered same, is of the opinion the motion should 

be GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants to move, answer or otherwise 

respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is July 10, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 26-1 Filed 07/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 874
Jeff SCHWARTZ, et ux., petitioners, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 18-118.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.