alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Shed T. WOODS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5491

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
James Eugene KEISER, Petitioner v. Ricky FOXWELL, Warden, et al.

No. 19-6367

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Jose ORTEGA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5460

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Carole L. SCHEIB, Petitioner v. James ROZBERIL

No. 18-9287

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for *287a writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (*per curiam* ).

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
BOSTON FINANCIAL TAX CREDIT FUND VIII, A Limited Partnership


                                 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 Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund VIII
(the "Fund") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Principal, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Fund.



                                                 /s/Jenny Netzer
                                                 Jenny Netzer
                                                 Executive Vice President
                                                 MMA Financial, LLC

                                                 Date:  November 13, 2003





A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 accompanying Annual Report of Modern City Entertainment, Inc.. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Erfurth President and Director 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: September 1, 2009
By:
/s/ William ErfurthWilliam ErfurthPresident and Director
Paul VALLEJO, Petitioner v. TEXAS.

No. 18-9794

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District denied.
Galen J. SUPPES, Petitioner v. CURATORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

No. 19-167

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District denied.
# C_2018414EN.01000202.xml

| 15.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9144 — Michael Kors/Gianni Versace)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 414/04)

On 7 November 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9144. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9144. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Kwame A. INSAIDOO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9762

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 21



G&L Realty Corp.

List of
Subsidiaries

July 31, 2004



|1. | G&L Hampden, Inc., a Delaware corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------

|2. | G&L Hampden, LLC a Delaware limited liability company
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------

|3. | G&L Realty Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------

|4. | G&L Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------

|5. | G&L Gardens, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------

|6. | G&L Senior Care, Inc., a Delaware corporation
|-- | ---------------------------------------------

|7. | G&L Medical Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------

|8. | 435 N. Roxbury Drive, Ltd., a California limited partnership
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------

|9. | G&L Grabel San Pedro, LLC
|-- | -------------------------

|10. | G&L Burbank, LLC
|--- | ----------------

|11. | G&L Burbank Managers Corp., a California corporation
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------

|12. | G&L Holy Cross, LLC
|--- | -------------------

|13. | G&L Holy Cross Managers Corp., a California corporation
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------

|14. | G&L Tustin, LLC
|--- | ---------------

|15. | G&L Tustin Managers Corp., a California corporation
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------

|16. | G&L Valencia, LLC
|--- | -----------------

|17. | G&L Penasquitos, LLC
|--- | --------------------

|18. | G&L Hoquiam, LLC
|--- | ----------------

|19. | G&L Lyons, LLC
|--- | --------------

|20. | G&L Coronado (1998), LLC
|--- | ------------------------

|21. | G&L Parsons on Eagle Run, LLC
|--- | -----------------------------

|22. | G&L Parsons on Eagle Run, Inc.
|--- | ------------------------------

|23. | Lakeview Associates, LLC
|--- | ------------------------

|24. | Tustin Heritage Place, LLC
|--- | --------------------------

|25. | G&L Massachusetts, LLC
|--- | ----------------------

|26. | G&L Aspen, LLC
|--- | --------------

|27. | G&L Tustin II, LLC
|--- | ------------------

|28. | G&L Tustin III, LLC
|--- | -------------------

|29. | G&L Senior Care Partnership, L.P.
|--- | ---------------------------------

|30. | G&L St. Thomas More, Inc.
|--- | -------------------------

|31. | St. Thomas More, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------

|32. | G&L Radius Realty, LLC
|--- | ----------------------

|33. | GLR/Yorba Linda, LLC
|--- | --------------------

|34. | 405 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------

|35. | 415 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------

|36. | 416 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------

|37. | 435 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------

|38. | G&L 436 Bedford, LLC
|--- | --------------------

|39. | G&L Sherman Oaks, LLC
|--- | ---------------------

|40. | G&L 4150 Regents, LLC
|--- | ---------------------

|41. | Palm Valley Senior Care, LLC
|--- | ----------------------------
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018305EN.01003501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/35 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9072 — KKR/Altice/SFR Filiale)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 305/14)

1.

On 24 August 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018305EN.01003501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | KKR & Co. Inc (‘KKR’) (USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Altice France S.A. (‘Altice’) (France), belonging to the Altice group, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | SFR Filiale SAS (‘SFR Filiale’), controlled by Altice. |

KKR and Altice acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of SFR Filiale.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for KKR: investment firm that provides asset management services and capital markets solutions,

—   for Altice: telecoms, content, media, entertainment and advertising services.

—   for SFR Filiale: telecommunication towers business of Altice’s subsidiary in France, SFR S.A.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018305EN.01003501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9072 — KKR/Altice/SFR Filiale

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018305EN.01003501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018305EN.01003501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Geoffrey Parker DAMON, Petitioner v. CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION

No. 18-1399

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
Rosa M. NAVARRETTE-LOPEZ, Petitioner v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 19-18

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1997
<CASH>                                         621,650
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    185,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,641,472
<PP&E>                                      12,115,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,364,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,017,825
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,986
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,177,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,364,618
<SALES>                                      5,214,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,214,308
<CGS>                                        1,927,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,509,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               396,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                288,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                    86,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            202,184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   202,184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Independent Auditors' Consent


To the Board of Trustees of
Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds:

We consent to the use of our report dated October 25, 1996 incorporated 
herein by reference and to the references to our Firm under the headings 
"Financial Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Counsel and Auditors" in 
the Statement of Additional Information.


							KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP





New York, New York
December 30, 1996
Ricardo Valles DE LA ROSA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6021.

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Imanol Pineda PENALOZA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6242

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Charles Benton BAGWELL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6309

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
David GUNTER, Petitioner, v. Cory PULSIPHER.

No. 19-8074.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Frank AMODEO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6085

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 43 

Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2013 

Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. CHU, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Ms. NORTON, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WILSON of 

Florida, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. RICHMOND, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SARBANES, 

Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. HOYER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. 

TSONGAS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. 

ELLISON, Mr. CLAY, Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. MORAN, 

Mr. SMITH of Washington, and Ms. MOORE) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 

amendment. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That notwithstanding any time limit contained in House 

4 Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the 

5 Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment pro6 posed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid 

7 to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HJ 43 IH 

1 whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 

2 the several States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 108 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 5021) 

3 an Act to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, 

4 highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other 

5 programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, and for 

6 other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

7 shall make the following correction: At the 
2 

•HCON 108 EH 

1 end, add the following and conform the table of contents 

2 accordingly: 

3 ‘‘TITLE III—TREATMENT FOR 

4 PAYGO PURPOSES 

5 ‘‘SEC. 3001. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

6 ‘‘(a) PAYGO SCORECARD.—The budgetary effects of 

7 this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not 

8 be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursu9 ant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

10 of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)). 

11 ‘‘(b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARD.—The budgetary 

12 effects of this Act and the amendments made by this Act 

13 shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained 

14 for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Con15 gress).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 108 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the correction of the enrollment of 

H.R. 5021.
Exhibit 7

FILED UNDER SEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 82-7 Filed 09/20/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3947
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 4 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 4

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income 
 tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second 
                 home should not be further restricted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2013

    Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Sherman) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income 
 tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second 
                 home should not be further restricted.

Whereas homeownership is a fundamental American ideal, which promotes social and 
        economic benefits beyond the benefits that accrue to the occupant of the 
        home;
Whereas homeownership is an important factor in promoting economic security and 
        stability for American families;
Whereas it is proper that the policy of the Federal Government is and should 
        continue to be to encourage homeownership;
Whereas the national homeownership rate for the third quarter of the year 2012 
        was 65.3 percent;
Whereas the housing needs of the population will change as the population ages;
Whereas the greatest growth sectors in homeownership are minorities and first-
        time homebuyers;
Whereas the level of homeownership among foreign-born naturalized citizens is 
        the same as the level of homeownership of the Nation as a whole (66 
        percent in 2011);
Whereas the value of a home represents a valuable source of savings for a 
        family;
Whereas the provisions related to homeownership are among the simplest and most 
        easily administered provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
Whereas the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt 
        secured by a first home has been a valuable cornerstone of this Nation's 
        housing policy for most of this century and may well be the most 
        important component of housing-related tax policy in America today; and
Whereas the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt 
        secured by second homes is of crucial importance to the economies of 
        many communities in each of the 50 States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income 
tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second 
home should not be further restricted.
                                 <all>
```