alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                     CRESCENT REAL ESTATE EQUITIES COMPANY

               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             (dollars in thousands)






<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               For the Year         For the Year        For the Year
                                                                   Ended               Ended               Ended
                                                              December 31, 1997   December 31, 1996   December 31, 1995
                                                              -----------------   -----------------   -----------------
<S>                                                                 <C>              <C>                 <C>       
Pretax Income from Continuing Operations                            135,024          $   47,951          $   36,358
Interest Expense                                                     86,441              42,926              18,781
Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs                              3,499               2,812               2,500
                                                                 ----------          ----------          ----------

Earnings                                                            224,964          $   93,689          $   57,639
                                                                 ==========          ==========          ==========


Interest Expense                                                     86,441              42,926              18,781
Capitalized Interest                                                  2,030                 946                 916
Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs                              3,499               2,812               2,500
                                                                 ----------          ----------          ----------

Fixed Charges                                                        91,970          $   46,684          $   22,197
                                                                 ==========          ==========          ==========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                     2.45                2.01                2.60
                                                                 ==========          ==========          ==========
</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Sebco Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Roman Henry Acosta, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth J. Yalin Tao, J.), dated April 8, 2019, which granted tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Elizabeth J. Yalin Tao, J.), dated April 8, 2019, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion denied, petition reinstated and the matter remanded to Civil Court for further proceedings.</p><p>Tenant's CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss this nuisance holdover proceeding should have been denied. Tenant failed to establish as a matter of law that landlord intended to relinquish its right to maintain this proceeding (<i>see Sullivan v Brevard Assoc</i>., 66 NY2d 489, 495 [1985]), when it accepted two DSS rent checks. The record establishes that this proceeding was commenced on August 6, 2018 (<i>see</i> CCA 400), following service of a predicate notice terminating the tenancy on July 31, 2018. Inasmuch as landlord had the right to accept rent after commencement of the proceeding (<i>see</i> RPAPL 711[1]), its acceptance of a DSS rent check dated August 10, 2018, did not constitute any waiver (<i>see Oppenheim v Spike</i>, 107 Misc 2d 55, 57 [1980]). Likewise, landlord's acceptance of a DSS rent check on July 27, 2018, prior to the July 31, 2018 lease termination date, did not constitute a waiver (<i>see Ringler &amp; Co. v Schmelzeisen</i>, 123 Misc 394 [1924]). Even assuming in tenant's favor that landlord accepted rent during the window period, a waiver was not conclusively established on this record, since the two DSS rent checks were paid to a bank lockbox (<a href="../2015/2015_05185.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Matter of Georgetown Unsold Shares, LLC v Ledet</i>, 130 AD3d 99</a> [2015], <i>appeal dismissed</i> 26 NY3d 1141 [2016]; <a href="../2017/2017_27279.htm" target="_blank"><i>Scarborough Manor Owners Corp. v <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Robson</i>, 57 Misc 3d 24</a>, 27 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2017]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 19, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

JUDY G. HEUGEL, § 

PLAINTIFF, § 

V. § 

§ 

TRANS UNION, LLC AND VICTORY § 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, § 

DEFENDANTS. § 

§ 

APR26202 

STEfTTK 

CAUSE NO. 1:22-CV-i 152-LY 

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the court in the above-referenced cause is Defendant Victory Management 

Services, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Doc. #18) and all related briefing, 

which was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. CIV.?. 72; Loc. R. W.D. Tex. App'x C, R. 1(d). The magistrate judge 

rendered a Report and Recommendation on April 10, 2023 (Doc. #46), recommending that the 

court dismiss the case without prejudice or transfer it to the Eastern District of Texas. 

A party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations of a magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the 

report and recommendation and thereby secure de novo review by the district court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party's failure to timely file written objections to the 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a report and recommendation bars that 

party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

Plaintiff Judy Heugel filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on April 20, 

2023 (Doc. #56). In light of the objections, the court will undertake a de novo review of the 

Case 4:23-cv-00371-SDJ Document 59 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 391
record and applicable law in this case. Having reviewed Heugel's objections and the entire case 

file, the court will accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation for substantially the 

reasons stated therein. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Judy Heugel's objections to the Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. #56) are OVERRULED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. #46) filed in this cause is APPROVED and ACCEPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Victory Management Services, LLC's 

Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Doc. #18) is GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: this case is 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

SIGNED this day of April, 2023. 

ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:23-cv-00371-SDJ Document 59 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 392
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/25/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      553,344
COMMITMENTS
  81,228   35,595  158,145  297,332  338,618  536,705  532,358   16,639   20,986

CHANGES FROM 06/18/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -8,187)
 -12,676    2,909   16,025  -11,715  -26,980   -8,366   -8,046      179     -141

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    14.7      6.4     28.6     53.7     61.2     97.0     96.2      3.0      3.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      148)
      39       36       60       63       62      134      132
```

----

Updated June 28, 2013
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Gaming Partners International Corporation for the year ended December 31,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Gérard Charlier, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company andMelody Sullivan Yowell, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or herknowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                       | GAMING PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 31,  2005 | By:                                       | /s/ GéRARD CHARLIER |
| * *                   |                                      | Gérard Charlier,*President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| Date: March 31,  2005 | By:                                       | /s/ MELODY SULLIVAN YOWELL |
| * *                   |                                      | Melody Sullivan Yowell,*Chief Financial Officer* |

 

This certification is being furnished to the SEC as anexhibit to the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

82

----
aaxv8kxa102_542012.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.2












Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404


 







May 3, 2012







PyroTec, Inc.


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404












Re:           Tender of shares for cancellation







Gentlemen:







By this letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 3,500,000 of the 5,000,000 shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of PyroTec, Inc. (the “Company”) which it holds.  Following the cancellation of such shares Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 1,500,000 of the Company’s Common Shares.







Sincerely,







ACCELERATED VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC

















By:  /s/ Timothy Neher_


       Timothy Neher, Managing Member
Jorge BAEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5261

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Michael Charles SMITH, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7310.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until April 13, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Exhibit 1 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66-2 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1573
From: Randall Garteiser

To: Geyer, Kate

Cc: Damitio, Chris; Machleidt, Dario; mikejones@potterminton.com; Shaun Hassett; Jessica Kaempf; Hannah Reid;

Michael Sacksteder

Subject: Re: Quantum v. Valve Corp. - motion and proposed order to file Valve"s motion to dismiss under seal.

Date: Thursday, April 4, 2024 10:33:43 AM

Thanks, for sending the Saturday email to me.

So after delaying weeks on providing 2 deposition dates and a date for source code review

now, Valve would like to stay the cases after insuring to me that Valve was going to work on

getting dates so there was no need to bother the discover judge? 

And, now Valve wants to file a slew of motions when we know the joint DCO allows for

amendments to pleadings and indeed Valve itself amended multiple times in Washington just

recently, resulting in the entire briefing schedule being entered by order by that court to

accommodate Valve Corp. Plaintiffs reserve their rights.

1. Will Valve stipulate to not asserting a licensing defense? Specifically, will Valve confirm

that it will not contend that under the prior “global” settlement and licensing agreement that it

is licensed to the patents asserted in these 3 cases? 

2. Would Valve be willing to waive filing fees motion in exchange for the stays in all 3 cases? 

What can I offer my Clients, as a stay seems great for the well-funded Valve Corp., but not for

our patent holder plaintiffs. 

Respectfully, lets push off talking until Valve has a chance to confirm its position on items 1

and 2 above so we can have a productive call. Monday afternoon works for us, as I will need

to get confirmation from my client once I hear back on items 1 and 2 above.

Be well,

Randy

Randall Garteiser / Partner

888.908.4400 x100 / rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

119 W Ferguson, Tyler, TX 75702

795 Folsom St, Floor 1, San Francisco, CA 94107-4226

http://www.ghiplaw.com

On Apr 4, 2024, at 10:59 AM, Geyer, Kate <KGeyer@ktslaw.com> wrote:

Randy –

Dario’s email from March 30 which is attached for reference sets forth the

motions we intend to file. We asked for a meet and confer on Monday. Plaintiff

has been on notice of these motions for days and there is no reason to delay a

meet and confer on these issues.

Kate Geyer

KGeyer@ktslaw.com

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66-2 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1574
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 23

- 00995

- CR
Linda Ann STEPHENS , Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CR0905 Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 17, 2024
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision in February 2022. On September 20, 20 23, the trial court signed an “Order Amending Conditions of Community Supervision.” On October 11, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, appearing to appeal the trial court’s order amending the conditions of community supervision. Because this c ourt does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order altering or modifying the conditions of community supervision, we ordered appellant to show

cause by December 21, 2023 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. See04

- 23

- 00995

- CR

- 2

- Davis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 708, 710

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State , 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Quaglia v. State , 906 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1995, no pet.). We admonished appellant if she failed to respond by that date, this appeal would
be dismissed. Appellant did not file a response. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 

SAUL ALONSO-CALDERON,

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 4:24-CR-00010-SDJ

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration 

of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge 

conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of 

Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court 

accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Saul AlonsoCalderon GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 

1326(a) and (b) - Reentry of a Deported Alien. 

Case 4:24-cr-00010-SDJ-KPJ Document 30 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 58
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000387 30-JAN-2015 08:14 AM
SEPTEMBER ENDS CO., et al. v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP.

No. 18-1265 (R46-23/OT 2018).

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 2, 2019.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Exhibit 10.4

 

March 30, 2012

 

American General Life Insurance Company of Delaware

c/o SunAmerica Financial Group, Inc.

2727-A Allen Parkway

Houston, Texas 77019

Attention:  Chief Financial Officer

 

American General Life Insurance Company of Delaware

c/o SunAmerica Financial Group, Inc.

1999 Avenue of the Stars

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Attention:  General Counsel

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

Reference is made to that certain Unconditional Capital Maintenance Agreement dated as of March 30, 2011 (the “Capital Maintenance Agreement”) by and between American International Group, Inc. and American General Life Insurance Company of Delaware (the “Company”).  Capitalized terms, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings set forth in the Capital Maintenance Agreement.

 

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Capital Maintenance Agreement, the undersigned parties hereby agree that effective as of March 30, 2012, the Specified Minimum Percentage shall equal 435%.  Accordingly, Schedule 1 to the Capital Maintenance Agreement shall be restated as follows:

 

“The Specified Minimum Percentage shall equal 435% of the Company’s Company Action Level RBC.”

 











 

	
 
    	
Yours sincerely,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ David   L. Herzog
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   David L. Herzog
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   Executive Vice President and
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief Financial Officer
    


 

Acknowledged and agreed:

 

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF DELAWARE

 

 

	
By:
    	
/s/ Don   W. Cummings
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name: Don   W. Cummings
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 31.2 

Certifications of ChiefFinancial Officer 

I, Stephen T. Wills, certify that: 

I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Palatin Technologies, Inc.; 

Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure          controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that          material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated          subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly          during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness          of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered          by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control          over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent          fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to          materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial          reporting; and 

The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation          of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to          adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and          report financial information; and 

(b)              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over          financial reporting. 

Date: May 9, 2005 

/s/ Stephen T. Wills            

Stephen T. Wills, ChiefFinancial Officer
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. 2:23-cv-00470 XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies 10/06/2023 /s/ Paul A. Kroeger Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

pkroeger@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 692
In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF Frank Woodson ERWIN

No. D-3063

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Frank Woodson Erwin, of Fort Myers, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
John H. STEWART, Petitioner, v. William HONSAL, as Administrator, et al.

No. 19-7174

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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