alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 83068 / April 19, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18171

In the Matter of

JEREMY A. LICHT d/b/a

JL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

By order dated June 30, 2017, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order Directing the 

Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that Establish Distribution 

Funds” (“Omnibus Order”),1authorizing the Secretary to issue orders beginning June 2017 and for 

calendar year 2018 appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, Miller Kaplan Arase LLP, a 

certified public accounting firm, which acquired Damasco & Associates LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), 

with one of their offices located in San Francisco, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur tax-related 

obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of the Treasury 

Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On April 19, 2018, the Commission staff requested the appointment of Miller Kaplan as 

the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance with the 

Omnibus Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 81057 (June 30, 2017).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 87396 / October 24, 2019

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-19334

In the Matter of

MVP Manager LLC, 

Respondent. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

EXTENSION ORDER

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time until 

March 31, 2020 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1101(a).

On August 13, 2019, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and 

Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment 

Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-andDesist Order (“Order”)1

against MVP Manager LLC (the “Respondent”). The Order required

the Respondent to pay a total of $249,740.30 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a 

civil money penalty to the Commission. The Commission also established a Fair Fund, 

pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the civil money penalty, 

along with the disgorgement and interest, can be distributed to harmed investors.

In its request for an extension of time, the Division states that it needs time to solicit 

and evaluate fund administrator proposals, develop the distribution methodology, and develop 

the plan of distribution.

 

1

 Advisers Act Rel. No. 5319 (Aug. 13, 2019).
2

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Division’s 

request for an extension of time until March 31, 2020 to submit a Proposed Plan of 

Distribution is granted.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
49–008 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–179 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE 

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL (H.R. 

1295) TO EXTEND THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT, THE 

GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES, THE PREFERENTIAL DUTY 

TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR HAITI, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 24, 2015.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 338] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 338, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of the Senate 

amendment to H.R. 1295. The resolution makes in order a motion 

offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his 

designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion. The resolution provides that the Senate amendment and the 

motion shall be considered as read. The resolution provides one 

hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion, the Committee is not aware of any points of 

order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
### §§588 to 590. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 648

Sections, act Mar. 31, 1933, ch. 17, §§4–6, 48 Stat. 23, related to appropriations, loans and duration of authority for the period of employment in forestation.

Act Apr. 8, 1935, ch. 48, §14, 49 Stat. 119, formerly classified to section 590 of this title, was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 649.
### §§443 to 443f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections, acts July 3, 1930, ch. 837, §§1–7, 46 Stat. 856; Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 405, 46 Stat. 1490; June 5, 1936, ch. 525, §§1, 2, 49 Stat. 1483, which related to Colonial National Historical Park, were transferred to sections 81, 81a, 81c, and 81e to 81i of this title.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                          Change in Control Agreements

     On February 22, 2000, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
approved a change of control pay plan providing for the payment of three years'
base salary and bonus, including an excise tax gross-up payment, for the chief
executive officer of the company, and providing for two years' base salary and
bonus, including an excise tax gross-up payment, for all executive vice
presidents of the company (at present, 4 persons), all senior vice presidents
reporting directly to the president (at present, 2 persons) and the senior vice
president-people development.

     The change of control pay plan will be reflected in formal agreements that
have not been finalized as of the date of this filing.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-QSB Quarterly Report of HeavenExpress.com, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



October 15, 2002

By: /s/ Saundra Sharpe
Saundra Sharpe, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and
Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of White Horse Resources, Inc.,
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2001 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Mary Schwartz, Appellant, v. Royal Novelty Children’s Dresses Corporation et al., Respondents.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present—Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Charles Davidson, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 11349;

Fourth District

August 27, 1971.

Morton Zwick, Director of Defender Project, of Chicago, for appellant.

Basil G. Greanias, State’s Attorney, of Decatur, for the People.
#### Zafar KHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POPEYES OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1064.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Zafar Khan, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard Henry Pazulski, Charles E. Chian & Associates, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Zafar Khan appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Appellee in his discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Khan v. Popeyes of Maryland, Inc.,*No. CA 01-1478-H (D.Md. Jan. 4, 2002). We deny Khan’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00722-CR

Joe Pena, Sr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR19,269, HONORABLE CHARLES E. LANCE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In 1996, appellant pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and was placed

on deferred adjudication for eight years. In 1998, the trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and

sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment. About one year later, appellant filed a notice of appeal,

and we dismissed that appeal, explaining that we were without jurisdiction to consider appellant’s

complaints and that he must instead raise them by way of a post-conviction application for writ of

habeas corpus. See Pena v. State, No. 03-99-00457-CR, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6354, at *1-2 (Tex.

App.—Austin Aug. 26, 1999, no pet.).

On November 15, 2012, appellant filed an “Untimely Notice of Appeal,” asserting

that his attorney had a conflict of interest and should not have been allowed to represent him, that

his attorney failed to file a timely notice of appeal as requested, and that the trial court improperly

considered extraneous offenses in deciding to revoke his deferred adjudication. As in appellant’s
earlier attempt to appeal, we arewithout jurisdiction to consider the merits of appellant’s complaints.

Appellant must first seek and obtain permission from the court of criminal appeals to file an out-oftime appeal. See Clark v. State, 287 S.W.3d 355, 355-56 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no

pet.); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012); Pena, 1999 Tex. App.

LEXIS 6354, at *1-2. We dismissthe appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Clark, 287 S.W.3d at 356.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 7, 2013

Do Not Publish

2
**EXHIBIT
        23.1**
  **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-63423 and 333-29225) and Form S-8 (Registration
        Nos.
        33-37279, 33-21668, 33-21667, 33-47664, 33-51178, 33-66136, 33-65352, 333-38795,
        333-38797 and 333-68863) of Hercules Incorporated of our reports dated February
        24, 2006, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule,
        and the effectiveness of Hercules Incorporated’s internal control over financial
        reporting which appears in this Form 10-K.
  /s/
        BDO
        Seidman, LLP
 March
        3,
        2006
#### In the Matter of Vincent Scuderi, Appellant. Isidore Penn and Garvin Bottle Cap Corporation et al., Respondents.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,761
<SECURITIES>                                   145,859
<RECEIVABLES>                                  777,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,927)
<INVENTORY>                                     17,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,647,953
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,171,321)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,435,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,715,668
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,083
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,135,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,435,521
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,891,320
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,236,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,623
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             302,212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                343,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                   141,652
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            201,618
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   201,618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.86<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.86
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT IS REPORTED AS EPS BASIC AND NOT FOR EPS PRIMARY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 4.08

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                              HFC CAPITAL TRUST I


        This Certificate of Trust of HFC Capital Trust I (the "Trust"), is being
duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to form a business trust
under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the
"Act").

        (a)       Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is HFC
Capital Trust I.

        (b)       Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the
trustee of  the Trust in the State of Delaware is Wilmington Trust Company,
Rodney Square North, 1100 N. Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001,
Attention: Corporate Trust Administration.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Trust in accordance with Section 3811 of the Act.


                                      WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its
                                      individual capacity but solely as Trustee



                                      By:
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Name:
                                         Title:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORLANDO DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-86) Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: April 27, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Duncan, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Orlando Duncan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeUnited States v. Duncan , No. CR-02-86 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135806 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135806 

 COA: 273671 

Wayne CC: 06-006398-01

MARCUS CHRISTOPHER SWANIGAN, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
HEI Exhibit 32.2

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer Furnished
Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted by

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HEI) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Curtis Y. Harada, Chief Financial Officer of HEI, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The consolidated information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition as of December 31, 2007 and results of operations for
the year ended December 31, 2007 of HEI and its subsidiaries.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Curtis Y. Harada                                                                 
|Curtis Y. Harada                                                                     
|Controller and Acting Financial Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
|Date: February 28, 2008                                                              

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hawaiian Electric
Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(November 14, 2006)

#### Francis Meth, Individually and as Executrix of Buddy Meth, Deceased, et al., Respondent, v Steven Gorfine, M.D., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[824 NYS2d 240]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 19, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Gorfine’s motion for summary judgment except as to any malpractice allegedly committed by him since January 2002, and denied in its entirety defendant Sohn’s *268cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a *Frye*hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice action alleging, inter alia, failure to diagnose plaintiffs pelvic cancer, the individual defendants failed to meet their burden, on summary judgment, of eliminating material issues of fact for trial *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Thus, the burden never shifted to plaintiffs to submit evidentiary facts or material raising a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The IAS court properly denied a *Frye*hearing. The type of cancer and whether the diagnostic delay would have affected plaintiffs prognosis are typical oncological issues that should be presented to a jury, and do not involve the type of procedure or test contemplated for a *Frye*hearing *(see Marsh v Smyth,*12 AD3d 307 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.