alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

HIL RIZVI, M.D.,

Petitioner

v.

BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, STATE BOARD OF MEDICINE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 147 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal, the Application for Reconsideration of Denial of Stay, Motions for Leave to File

an Amended Complaint, and the Application to Expedite are DENIED

.
Antoine D. DEGRATE, petitioner, v. Scott S. HARRIS, Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States.

No. 17-9069.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

*499Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2014

No. 04-14-00132-CR

Leonard Garcia LAZO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-05-00060-CRK

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant Leonard Garcia Lazo’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to 

withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no 

meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel states he has sent copies of the brief and motion to 

withdraw to appellant and written a letter explaining to Lazo his rights to review the record and 

file a pro se brief and to file a pro se petition for discretionary review if this court determines the 

appeal is frivolous. See Kelly v. State, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. 

June 25, 2014). 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before September

4, 2014. If appellant desires to review the appellate record, he must file a written request for 

access to the record with this court by August 20, 2014. The request must be mailed to: Fourth 

Court of Appeals, 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200, San Antonio, Texas 78232. If Lazo timely 

requests access to the record, the deadline to file appellant’s pro se brief will be reset. 

If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than 

thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. Alternatively, if appellant does not 

file a timely pro se brief, the State may file a brief in response to counsel’s brief no later than 

October 6, 2014. 
We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance 

pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 

L. Ed.2d 300 (1988) (holding that a motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate 

court independently reviews the record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that the appeal 

is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 

(same); see also Kelly, 2014 WL 2865901 (appointed counsel’s duties of representation do not 

cease when he files a motion to withdraw; counsel must continue to ‘act with competence, 

commitment and dedication to the interest of the client’ until the court of appeals grants the 

motion). Accordingly, no new attorney will be appointed for him at this time.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his 

counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, Albert Wahbe, Chief Executive Officer of Diversinet Corp., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Diversinet Corp.





/s/ Albert Wahbe

Name: Albert Wahbe

Title:   Chief Executive Officer

March 4, 2010



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
SUBJECT:	Rule 10f-3 Report

The following funds purchased
securities and complied with
the provisions of Rule 10f-3.


10f-3 REPORT

SALOMON BROTHERS
Salomon Brothers Investors Fund

10f-3 REPORT

SALOMON BROTHERS
INVESTORS VALUE FUND
September 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2001

Issuer: Prudential Financial
Trade Date: 12/12/01
Seller Dealer: Goldman Sachs,
Prudential
Purchase Amount: $2,398,000
Price: $27.50
% of Issue (1): 0.21A

(1) Represents purchases by
all affiliated funds; may
not exceed 25% of the
offering.

A - A total of 234,400 shares
was purchased by funds in the
Salomon Brothers complex for
an aggregate purchase price
of $6,446,000.



The following funds purchased
securities and complied with
the provisions of Rule 10f-3.
1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 30 AND
31 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,966
<PP&E>                                       1,732,626
<DEPRECIATION>                               (208,808)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,730,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,462
<BONDS>                                        667,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           361
<OTHER-SE>                                     865,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,730,922
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,861
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,441
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,306
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
        

</TABLE>
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 47 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving 

Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 

United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Mr. BACHUS (for himself and Mr. LIPINSKI) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States giving Congress power to prohibit the physical 

desecration of the flag of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 47 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys3 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### Form 10-Q Table of Contents

Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John G. Pasqualetto,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 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.

Dated: November 13, 2006

| |  |  |                                                                                            
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ John G. PasquqalettoJohn G. PasquqalettoChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic
version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. and will
be retained by SeaBright Inhsurance Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00485

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Before the Court is Redstone’s Unopposed Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. The 

Court, having considered the motion, and for good cause shown, finds that the motion should be 

GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following amendments to the Court’s Scheduling 

Order, Dkt. 18, be entered:

Activity Former Deadline New Deadline

Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement 

Contentions)

3/11/24 3/25/24

Join Additional Parties 4/1/24 No Change

*File Proposed Docket Control Order and 

Proposed Discovery Order

The Proposed Docket Control Order and Proposed 

Discovery Order shall be filed as separate motions 

with the caption indicating whether or not the 

proposed order is opposed in any part.

4/8/24 No Change

*File Proposed Protective Order

The Proposed Protective Order shall be filed as a 

separate motion with the caption indicating 

4/15/24 No Change

Case 2:23-cv-00485-JRG Document 22-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 128
2

EAST\179320417.1

Activity Former Deadline New Deadline

whether or not the proposed order is opposed in 

any part.

*Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3 of the Discovery 

Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures)

4/15/24 4/29/24

Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity 

Contentions)

5/6/24 6/3/24

Comply with Standing Order Regarding SubjectMatter Eligibility Contentions

5/6/24 6/3/24

Case 2:23-cv-00485-JRG Document 22-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 129
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20300 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EDENIXON BALMORE SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-664-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edenixon Balmore Sandoval appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry by a previously deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is an element of the offense that must have been charged in the indictment. Sandoval acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but heNo. 00-20300 -2- seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Accordingly, Sandoval’s only argument on appeal is foreclosed. His conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Mark TARGOWSKI, Petitioner, v. Zachary Lee RAWLINS.

No. 19-1172.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34920-34921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12290]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95027; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-03]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of 
a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt Market Data 
Fees

June 2, 2022.
    On March 24, 2022, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') filed with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and

[[Page 34921]]

Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its Fee 
Schedule to adopt fees for its market data products. The proposed rule 
change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The Exchange implemented 
the fees on April 1, 2022. The proposed rule change was published for 
comment in the Federal Register on April 11, 2022.\4\ On May 23, 2022, 
MEMX withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-MEMX-2022-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94614 (April 5, 
2022), 87 FR 21232.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12290 Filed 6-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-CV-00641-JRG-RSP 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

Notice is hereby given that Christopher O. Green, of the law firm Fish & Richardson P.C., 

enters his appearance in this matter for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. and consents to electronic services of all papers in this action. 

Dated: April 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

By: /s/ Christopher O. Green 

 Christopher O. Green 

GA Bar No. 037617 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1180 Peachtree St NE, 21st Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Phone: (404) 892-5005 

Fax: (404)892-5002 

Email: cgreen@fr.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 894
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on April 22, 2024 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ Christopher O. Green 

Christopher O. Green 

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 895
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/07/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      405,092
COMMITMENTS
 115,836  172,886   90,074  173,292  113,371  379,202  376,331   25,890   28,761

CHANGES FROM 04/30/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     17,009)
  11,463    4,178    4,877     -624    7,954   15,716   17,009    1,293        0

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    28.6     42.7     22.2     42.8     28.0     93.6     92.9      6.4      7.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      168)
      53       65       71       36       34      129      141
```

----

Updated May 10, 2013
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Performance Health Technologies, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, James E. Bartolomei, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.








Dated:
      November 19, 2007


/s/
      James E.
      Bartolomei


James
      E.
      Bartolomei


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Jacob Daniel WOLF, Petitioner, v. Suzanne M. PEERY, Warden.

No. 19-7785.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0380

IN THE MATTER OF:

J.K., 

Respondent and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including March 16, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 3 2022

02/03/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0380
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,608
<PP&E>                                         660,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (189,907)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,046
<BONDS>                                        546,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (37,479)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   522,211
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,283
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,817
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,817
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
        

</TABLE>
George Maurice STEELE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7450

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

ANTHONY CAIRNS

v. 

DALROCK MANAGEMENT, INC. 

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24CV25 

JUDGE MAZZANT 

ORDER ON CLOSING DOCUMENTS

The Court has been advised by the Plaintiff, through counsel, that all claims in the abovestyled civil action have been settled. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that, on or before April 19, 2024, all parties shall submit to 

the court all papers necessary for the closing of this case and its removal from the active docket of 

this court. If such papers are not received by the court by the scheduled deadline, the Court may 

order counsel to appear at a hearing for the purpose of determining which party is responsible for 

the delay. Thereafter, the Court may enter such orders as are just and necessary to ensure 

prompt resolution of this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:24-cv-00025-ALM Document 5 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 27