alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Cancer Institute, July 11, 2022, 11:00 a.m. to July 12, 2022, 3:30 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 6, 2022, FR Doc 2022-12046, 87 FR 34280.                

This notice is being amended to change the meeting end time on July 12, 2022, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. The meeting will now be held on July 11, 2022, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. and July 12, 2022, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is partially closed to the public.

Dated: June 9, 2022.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-12834 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORP.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:24-CV-00064-JRG

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO MOTION TO TRANSFER (DKT. 87)

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 97-1 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4796
On this date the Court considered the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition 

and Reply to Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 87), filed by Plaintiff VirtaMove Corp. (“Plaintiff” or

“VirtaMove”) and Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise (“Defendant”). Based on the motion

and the grounds set forth therein, and the agreement of the Parties in the motion, the Court finds 

that good cause has been established and the Joint Motion for Extension of Time should be granted. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff’s time to respond to the 

Motion shall be extended by one week, from October 29, 2024, to November 5, 2024; and (2) 

Defendant’s time to file a reply in support of its motion shall be extended by one week, from 

November 12, 2024, to November 19, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 97-1 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4797
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20135

Summary Calendar

RICHARD A. MOSBY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-1959)

October 5, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard A. Mosby appealsthe district court’s grant ofsummary judgmentfor

Baylor College of Medicine on his claims of employment discrimination based on

race, gender, age, and retaliation for a complaint filed with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission. Having considered the briefs and pertinent parts of the

record, and finding no reversible error, we conclude and hold that on the basis of

the facts as detailed, authorities cited, and analysis presented by the district court
2

in its Memorandum and Opinion signed and dated January 12, 1998, the judgment

appealed should be and is AFFIRMED.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/06/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      391,848
COMMITMENTS
 104,252  167,718   83,493  170,276  105,114  358,021  356,325   33,827   35,523

CHANGES FROM 04/29/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     26,633)
  -6,591   11,389      832   20,549    6,293   14,790   18,514   11,843    8,119

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    26.6     42.8     21.3     43.5     26.8     91.4     90.9      8.6      9.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      195)
      59       81       82       41       38      149      161
```

----

Updated May 9, 2014
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40500 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS MORIN-DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-774-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Morin-Davila (“Morin”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Morin argues pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements of the offense, not sentence enhancements, making those provisions unconstitutional. Morin concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224No. 03-40500 -2- (1998), and he raises it for possible review by the Supreme
Court. Morin’s Apprendi argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. We must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
Stella Rae JAMES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8269.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-CV-00064-JRG

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF MACKENZIE PALADINO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.’S SUR REPLY TO HPE’s MOTION TO TRANSFER (DKT. 87)

I, Mackenzie Paladino, declare and state as follows:

1. I am a member of the State Bar of New York and an attorney at the firm of Russ 

August & Kabat, and one of the attorneys for Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp. in the above-captioned 

action. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply to HPE’s Motion to Transfer. I 

have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testify, could and would 

testify competently thereto.

2. Attached as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of Resonant Systems, Inc.’s 

Response to Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Document 9 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107-1 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

5691
2

from In re Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc., No. 24-140 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2024) without the 

appendix.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on November 22, 2024 in New York, New York.

/s/ Mackenzie Paladino

Mackenzie Paladino

(NY SBN: 6039366)

mpaladino@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107-1 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

5692
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                               G&L Realty Corp.
                             List of Subsidiaries
                                April 30, 1998


1.   AV Medical Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company
2.   G&L Hampden, Inc., a Delaware corporation
3.   G&L Hampden, LLC a Delaware limited liability company
4.   G&L Realty Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
5.   G&L Realty Financing II, Inc., a Delaware corporation
6.   G&L Realty Financing Partnership II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
7.   G&L Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation
8.   G&L Gardens, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company
9.   G&L Management Delaware Corp., a Delaware corporation
10.  G&L Senior Care, Inc., a Delaware corporation
11.  G&L Medical Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
12.  GLN Capital Co. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
13.  GL/PHP, LLC a Delaware limited liability company
14.  Theme World, L.P., a New Jersey limited partnership
15.  Valley Convalescent, LLC, a California limited liability company
16.  435 N. Roxbury Drive, Ltd., a California limited partnership
17.  G&L/M&Z Aliso Partners, a California general partnership
18.  G&L - Grabel San Pedro, LLC
19.  G&L Burbank, LLC
20.  G&L Burbank Managers Corp., a California coporation
21.  G&L Holy Cross, LLC
22.  G&L Holy Cross Managers Corp., a California corporation
23.  G&L Tustin, LLC
24.  G&L Tustin Managers Corp., a California corporation
25.  G&L Valencia, LLC
26.  G&L Penasquitos, LLC
27.  G&L Penasquitos, Inc.
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofSeptember 1, 2017 by and among Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesCorp. as Depositor, KeyBank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC asOperating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator and as Trustee relating toCSAIL 2017-CX9 Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2017-CX9 **(CSAIL 2017-CX9)**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of September 29, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”)in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted undermy supervision.

 

3.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been afailure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failureand the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer                                                 Date: March1, 2018

     Adam Singer, Managing Director
Horatio JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 19-6679.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Ramos* v. *Louisiana* , 590 U.S. --- (2020). Justice Alito, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand: In this and in all other case in which the Court grants, vacates, and remands in light of *Ramos* v. *Louisiana* , I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand.
Redinel DERVISHAJ, aka Redi, aka Red, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7661.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Asata D. LOWE, Petitioner, v. Mike PARRIS, et al.

No. 19-7229.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
Matthew L. SMELTZER, Petitioner v. Audrey KING.

No. 18-9613

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                               U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                       273
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,677
<PP&E>                                         179,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,462
<BONDS>                                        117,967
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          118,165
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (101,008)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,586
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,761
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,171 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify 

that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires 

prayer in schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. RAHALL 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 to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits 

voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in schools. 

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: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 42 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution, including any amend3 ment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit 

4 voluntary prayer or require prayer in a public school, or 

5 to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public 

6 school extracurricular activity.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Cite as State v. Bronczyk, 2013-Ohio-3129.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98664 

 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

 vs.

JOSEPH BRONCZYK

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CR-540345 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 465969 

RELEASE DATE: July 17, 2013 
APPELLANT

Joseph Bronczyk, Pro Se 

No. 594-815 

2500 South Avon Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Holly Welsh 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

{¶1} On June 20, 2013, Joseph Bronczyk filed an application for reopening 

pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Bronczyk is attempting to reopen the appeal that was 

dismissed by this court on May 8, 2013. 

App.R. 26(B)(1) provides that 

a defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal 

from the judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a claim of 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening 

shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within 

ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the 

applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶2} In the case sub judice, no appellate judgment was announced and journalized 

by this court that reviewed Bronczyk’s conviction and sentence as rendered in State v. 

Bronczyk, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-540345. Thus, this court is prevented from 

considering Bronczyk’s application for reopening as made pursuant to App.R. 26(B). 

State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209; See also State v. 

Halliwell, 8th Dist. No. 70369, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 285 (Jan. 28, 1999). 

Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. 

 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
Arnold ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. Gilberto VALENZUELA, et al.

No. 19-8077.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET-WTI - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                      Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/23/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      417,468
COMMITMENTS
  59,124   44,773  115,660  226,050  247,526  400,834  407,959   16,634    9,509

CHANGES FROM 12/16/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -31,172)
 -21,156  -10,907    3,925  -14,061  -19,213  -31,292  -26,195      120   -4,977

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    14.2     10.7     27.7     54.1     59.3     96.0     97.7      4.0      2.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      114)
      30       24       45       55       54      106      102
```

----

Updated December 30, 2014
```
 
 
WHEAT-HRSpring - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                          Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/22/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       71,590
COMMITMENTS
  22,294    6,147    3,163   31,090   46,971   56,547   56,281   15,043   15,309

CHANGES FROM 04/15/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,882)
    -511     -623     -372      291     -658     -592   -1,653   -1,290     -229

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    31.1      8.6      4.4     43.4     65.6     79.0     78.6     21.0     21.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       96)
      36        8       15       44       38       86       57
```

----

Updated April 25, 2014
IN RE Wesley PERKINS, Petitioner.

No. 19-1140.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GERREN J. McDONALD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-744 ) REGIONS BANK d/b/a Regions Mortgage, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 2, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark Kiser, Judge. Mark P. Stopa of Stopa Law Firm, Tampa, for Appellant. Hope T. Cannon and Richard K. Vann, Jr. of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Samuel BENZANT, Petitioner v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

No. 19-5473

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

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