alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AT JUNE 30,  1998 AND FOR THE TWELVE  MONTH
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000917823
<NAME>                        PROPHET 21, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,206
<SECURITIES>                                   1,555
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (240)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,380
<PP&E>                                         2,887
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,778)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,548
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       42
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,615
<SALES>                                        46,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46,614
<CGS>                                          25,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               16,372
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (304)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,530
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,539
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .90
        

</TABLE>
Dwayne Lee STALLINGS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9691

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 15

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 234
Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
Page 2

On information and belief, Lenovo Moto G Power mobile phones contain a Micron MT29046 multi-chip module with LPDDR4 SDRAM (Z11N die), 3D NAND Flash (B16A die)controller (PS8226 die). A 3D NAND flash array is a cubic memory array. 

Techinsights, “Intel 29F01T2ANCTH2 64-Layer 256Gb 3D NAND Flash”, report AM

March 2018 

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 2
Page 3

Techinsights, “Intel 29F01T2ANCTH2 64-Layer 256Gb 3D NAND Flash”, report AM

March 2018 

a plurality of horizontal select lines; 

The 3D NAND Flash array has a plurality of wordlines, which are horizonal select lines. 

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 2
Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 2
Page 5

Techinsights, “Intel 29F01T2ANCTH2 64-Layer 256Gb 3D NAND Flash”, report AM

March 2018 

a plurality of vertical select lines; 

The 3D NAND Flash array has a plurality of vertical select lines. 

Techinsights, “Intel 29F01T2ANCTH2 64-Layer 256Gb 3D NAND Flash”, report AM

March 2018 

a plurality of memory cells, each memory cell adjacent to a horizontal select line and adjacent to a vertical select line; and 

The 3D NAND Flash array has a plurality of floating gate memory cells, each memory cehorizontal select line and adjacent to a vertical select line. 

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 2
Page 6

Techinsights, “Intel 29F01T2ANCTH2 64-Layer 256Gb 3D NAND Flash”, report AM

March 2018 

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 2
Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 2
Page 8

orthogonal to each other. 

Techinsights, “Intel 29F01T2ANCTH2 64-Layer 256Gb 3D NAND Flash”, report AM

March 2018 

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 1-16 Filed 09/27/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 2
IN RE Gilbert M. MARTINEZ, Petitioner.

No. 19-7296.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
Jamie Neil CAPALBO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5078

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.
AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

District of &ROXPELD

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No.

Defendant(s)

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

On or about the date(s) of in the county of in the

, the defendant(s) violated:

Code Section Offense Description

This criminal complaint is based on these facts: 

u Continued on the attached sheet.

Printed name and title

$WWHVWHGWRE\WKHDSSOLFDQWLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI)HG5&ULP3

E\WHOHSKRQH

Date:

Judge’s signature

City and state:

Printed name and title

6HHDWWDFKHGVWDWHPHQWRIIDFWV

9

Complainant’s signature

LQWKH'LVWULFWRI &ROXPELD

:DVKLQJWRQ'&

Dana Jean Bell 

 DOB: 10/10/1958

January 6, 2021

18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) - Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers, 

18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) - Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder, 

18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) - Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without 

Lawful Authority, 

18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) - Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds, 

40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) - Disorderly Conduct in the Capitol Grounds or Buildings, 

40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G) - Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.

Laird W. Hightower, Special Agent

12/06/2023

G. Michael Harvey, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 4:23-mj-00618-KPJ Document 1 Filed 12/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1
Robert M. KOWALSKI, Petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 19-5277

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Alexander Nathan NORRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8178.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
John Henry HOYLE, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA.

No. 19-7777.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Randy S. Selman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Visual Data Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Visual Data Corporation.

January 13, 2003

                                           By: /s/ Randy S. Selman
                                               -------------------------
                                           Name:   Randy S. Selman
                                           Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Lease Contract



 Exhibit 10.15 
 Lease Contract 
 Lessor (Party A): Heilongjiang Pingshan Yew Comprehensive Development Co.,
Ltd. 
 Lessee (Party B): Heilongjiang Yew Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. 

This Contract is enacted according to “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China” and the Parties hereby agreed as follows:

  

	1.	 Party A agreed to lease the collectively-owned property (Beichuan Village, Pingshan Town, A’cheng District, Harbin City) with a construction area
of 3885.56m2 to Party B for office use.



  

	2.	Lease term 

 The lease term will
be 23 years, from March 20, 2002 when Party A provides the premise to Party B, to March 19, 2025 when Party B returns the premise to Party A. 
  

	3.	Party B is responsible for renovation and maintenance of the premise. Party B shall take good care of the premise and its auxiliary facilities. Party B shall obtain
prior consent of Party A before renovates the premise. Party B shall ensure the entirety of the premise when return it to Party A. Otherwise, Party B should compensate for all loss and damage. 


 

	4.	Rental payment for the first 10 years should be made before the year of 2012, the amount of which is RMB 250,000; rental payment for the next 5 years should be made
before the year of 2017, the amount of which is RMB 125,000; and rental payment for the rest 7 years should be made before the year of 2025, the amount of which is RMB 175,000. 


 

	5.	Modification and termination 


This Contract can be modified or terminated when both parties agree. Otherwise, any modification and termination will be deemed as breach
of contract. 
  

	6.	If the negotiation fails to resolve the controversy, each party or both parties may submit the outstanding issue to court in accordance with “Contract Law of the
People’s Republic of China”. 

 This agreement is in duplicate, each party will hold one copy.

 Lessor: (Sign or Chop) Heilongjiang Pingshan Yew Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd. 

Lessee: (Sign or Chop) Heilongjiang Yew Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. 

Zhiguo Wang 
 March 20, 2002
IN RE Brad K. EDMONDS, Petitioner.

No. 19-6887.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

JOHN FRANCIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-574-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff John Francis, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case 

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636. 

On February 2, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Docket No. 12. Plaintiff filed objections. 

Docket No. 13. 

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

Case 6:23-cv-00574-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 26
2 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his health has been badly neglected and 

he has not been getting his evening snacks. He also asserts that he has not been able 

to properly manage his blood sugar due to inadequate diet. Docket No. 13. Plaintiff’s 

objections, however, fail to properly address or controvert the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report concerning Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 12) as 

the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute or obey a Court order. 

Signed this

Mar 14, 2024

Case 6:23-cv-00574-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 27
Abraham CONDE-HERRERA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6795.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Seth A. WEAVER, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 19-7823.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District denied.
Babatunde POPOOLA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7757.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information  extracted from Form 10-Q for the six
months  ended June 30,  2000,  and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>              184,254,040
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         0
<EQUITIES>                         13,209,334
<MORTGAGE>                                  0
<REAL-ESTATE>                               0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                    203,616,256
<CASH>                              1,507,548
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                      1,972
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>             21,232,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    288,016,926
<POLICY-LOSSES>                    14,571,328
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                 6,665,136
<POLICY-OTHER>                              0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                    34,464,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                              133,162
<OTHER-SE>                        174,811,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      288,016,926
<PREMIUMS>                         34,980,151
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                 5,993,440
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                    813,684
<OTHER-INCOME>                         11,365
<BENEFITS>                          3,655,838
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>         4,027,889
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                8,113,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    24,615,911
<INCOME-TAX>                        7,478,132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                17,137,779
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       17,137,779
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.25
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                           0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                     0


</TABLE>
Aldo SALAZAR-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES; Ricardo Roosbel Morales-Gallegos, Petitioner, v. United States; and Victor Manuel Robledo-Cuevas, Petitioner, v. United States.

No. 19-6282.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-8-2004

Southco Inc v. Kanebridge Corp

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-1243

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Southco Inc v. Kanebridge Corp" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 24.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/24
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 02-1243

SOUTHCO, INC.,

 

 Appellant

 

v.

 

KANEBRIDGE CORPORATION

 

_________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

District Court Judge: Honorable Norma L. Shapiro

(D.C. No. 99-cv-04337)

____________________

Argued: December 3, 2002

Reargued En Banc: October 8, 2003

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, McKEE,

RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, CHERTOFF, and BECKER,

Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed December 3, 2004)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The opinion in the above case is hereby amended as follows:

At page two of the opinion delete the following:
*Chief Judge SCIRICA and Judges SLOVITER, NYGAARD, RENDELL,

BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES join this opinion. Judges MCKEE, SMITH, and

BECKER Join Parts I and II. 

ALITO, Circuit Judge with whom SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER,

NYGAARD, MCKEE (Joining Parts I and II only), RENDELL,

BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH (Joining Parts I and II only)

and BECKER (Joining Part II only), Circuit Judges, join:

Replace with the following:

 ALITO, Circuit Judge:

*

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 

Circuit Judge

DATED: December 8, 2004
**Exhibit 31.2  -  Certification of Chief Financial Officer  -  Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302**

 

I, Kenneth W. Jones, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (“Amendment No. 1”) of Triad Guaranty  Inc.; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date:  August 10, 2007

|   | /s/ Kenneth W. Jones |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Kenneth W. Jones |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
Frank DEVILLE, et ux., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, Second Appellate District, et al.

No. 19-7511.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JUSTIN LOCUST §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-388 

OFFICER BANGART §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Justin Locust, a prisoner previously confined at the United States Penitentiary in

Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Officer Bangart.

The action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $34.40

within thirty days of the date of the order. As of this date, Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial

filing fee. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., 905 F.3d

835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The power to

invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases

and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626,

629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997).

Case 1:23-cv-00388-MJT-CLS Document 13 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

39
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case diligently because he has not complied with the

court order to pay the initial partial filing fee. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed without

prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This civil rights action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00388-MJT-CLS Document 13 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

40