alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4(f)  



	PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY	 	P. O. BOX 10648	 	BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA	 	35202-0648
	





ASSET BASED FEE ENDORSEMENT

FOR

VARIABLE ANNUITY DEATH BENEFIT RIDERS  


We
are adding the following provisions to the Variable Annuity Death Benefit Rider attached to your Contract: 


Benefit Cost—The cost for the death benefit is equal, on an annualized basis, to {0.15%} of the average Contract Value on the Valuation Days
described in the next paragraph. 


Monthly Fee—Once each month while the Variable Annuity Death Benefit Rider is in force, we will calculate the fee for the death benefit and
deduct that amount from the Contract Value. The monthly fee is calculated as of the end of the Valuation Period that includes the same day of the month as the Effective Date, or the last Valuation
Period of the month if that date does not occur during the month for which the fee is being calculated. The fee is deducted from the Contract Value as of the next Valuation Period. 


Calculating the Monthly Fee—We calculate the monthly fee using the formula below: 


Monthly Fee = [ 1 - ( 1 - {0.15%})1/12] x CV , where 



CV = is the Contract Value as of the calculation date. 




Deducting the Monthly Fee—We will deduct the monthly fee as of the Valuation Period immediately following the Valuation Period for which it
was calculated. The monthly fee will be deducted pro rata from the Allocation Options in the same proportion that the value of the Allocation Option bears to the total Contract Value. Deduction of the
monthly fee is a partial surrender for the purpose of calculating the death benefit. 


Signed
for the company and made a part of the contract as of the Effective date. 


PROTECTIVE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 



	


 



Secretary

	
 	

 




1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1344 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1344

                  For the relief of Pamela S. Konkel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2003

 Mr. Shimkus introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Pamela S. Konkel.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS.

    (a) Eligibility to Receive Widow's Insurance Benefits.--For 
purposes of determining the entitlement of Pamela S. Konkel (social 
security number 000-00-5889) of Troy, Illinois, to widow's insurance 
benefits under section 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
402(e)) on the basis of the wages and employment of her husband, Robert 
Konkel (social security number 000-00-9184), Pamela S. Konkel shall be 
deemed, effective as of October 31, 2002--
            (1) to be a widow within the meaning of section 216(c)(5) 
        of such Act, and
            (2) to have attained the age of 60, in satisfaction of 
        section 202(e)(1)(B)(i) of such Act.
    (b) Payment of Benefits.--Any widow's insurance benefits to which 
Pamela S. Konkel is entitled for the period prior to the date of 
enactment of this Act shall be paid to her in a lump sum.
                                 <all>
```
### §387. Duties of officers of customs and marshals as to seizure

The collectors of the several ports of entry, the surveyors of the several ports of delivery, and the marshals of the several judicial districts within the United States, shall seize any vessel or boat built, purchased, fitted out, or held as mentioned in section 385 of this title, which may be found within their respective ports or districts, and to cause the same to be proceeded against and disposed of as provided by that section.

(R.S. §4299.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Surveyors of the several ports of delivery, referred to in text, are probably obsolete offices in view of act July 5, 1932, ch. 430, title I, §1, 47 Stat. 584, which abolished the offices of surveyors of customs, except at the Port of New York. Ports of delivery, except those which were made ports of entry, were abolished and the use of the term "port of delivery" was discontinued under the President's plan of reorganization of the customs service communicated to Congress by message dated Mar. 3, 1913.

#### Codification

R.S. §4299 derived from act Aug. 5, 1861, ch. 48, §3, 12 Stat. 315.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

All offices of collector of customs, comptroller of customs, surveyor of customs, and appraiser of merchandise in Bureau of Customs of Department of the Treasury to which appointments were required to be made by President with advice and consent of Senate ordered abolished, with such offices to be terminated not later than December 31, 1966, by Reorg. Plan No. 1, of 1965, eff. May 25, 1965, 30 F.R. 7035, 79 Stat. 1317, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. All functions of offices eliminated were already vested in Secretary of the Treasury by Reorg. Plan No. 26 of 1950, eff. July 31, 1950, 15 F.R. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280, set out in the Appendix to Title 5.
EXHIBIT 31.2
I, Louis Ploth, Jr., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Zonagen, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 

 

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: May 9, 2005 By: /s/ Louis Ploth, Jr.     Louis Ploth, Jr.   Vice President Business Development    and Chief Financial Officer   Zonagen, Inc.
#### Alfred C. Blumenthal, Appellant, v. Margaret F. Blumenthal; Respondent.

No opinion. Present ■—• Townley, Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn_ and Callahan, JJ.; Townley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny the motion.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Guillermo PINTADO-ISIORDIA, aka Juan Gomez-Rosales, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-56416.

D.C. Nos. CV-01-0159-BTM CR-97-2167-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2002 *.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Before KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,** District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Susan Ritchie Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Guillermo Pintado-Isiordia appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. *594§ 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1326 for attempted reentry following deportation. Pintado-Isiordia argues that the trial court committed constitutional error by declining to instruct the jury that it must acquit him if he believed in good faith that he was a United States citizen at the time he attempted to enter the United States.

A court may vacate a conviction on a § 2255 motion if it concludes that “there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack.”1 We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Pintado-Isiordia’s § 2255 motion,2 and we review for clear error the findings underlying the court’s decision.3

Appellant argues that our en banc decision in *United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry,*4 which came down after his trial, establishes that he was entitled to the good faith instruction he requested. But *Gracidas-Ulibarry*spoke to a “specific intent to enter illegally,”5 as distinct from being brought across the border drunk or asleep without a specific intent to enter. It does not speak to the issue appellant raises, whether there is a scienter element of knowing that one is an alien.

Even if the government did have to prove not only that Pintado-Isiordia was an alien but also that he knew he was, any error in failing so to instruct would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. He had been deported on at least five prior occasions, the most recent occasion just two months before this one, and had admitted to being an alien from Mexico. At least three of these deportations, in which he admitted he was an alien, were after the time he now says his mother told him he was born on the United States side of the border.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2002).

2

. *United States v. Christakis,*238 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2001).

3

. *Id.*

4

. 231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir.2000)(en banc).

5

. id. at 1192.
***Exhibit 32***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 report on Form 10-Q of Allied Resources, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ruairidh Campbell, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)   This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: August 15, 2011

                       

 

/s/ Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh Campbell

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 10.40
 Executive Transition Assistance Agreement
Amendment No. 1
       1.
    
    Six-Month Payment Delay. Section 1(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read
in full as follows:
  2.
    
    Bonus Eligibility. Section 1(a) of the Agreement is amended to add a
paragraph (iii) thereto, such paragraph to read in full as follows:




---



##### 



3.
    
    Equity Award Acceleration. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add a
new subsection (c), which subsection shall read in full as follows:
  4.
    
    No Payments on Death or Disability. The existing Section 1(c) of the Agreement is
hereby re-designated as Section 1(e).5.
    
    Release Requirement. Section 2(a)(v) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in
full as follows:
  6.
    
    Requirement of Compensation Committee Approval. Section 2 of the Agreement
is hereby amended to add a new subsection (c), which subsection shall read in full as
follows:
  2




---



##### 



be made by
the Compensation Committee in the exercise of its sole discretion based on such factors as
it may deem relevant.7.
    
    COBRA. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to designate the
existing paragraph appearing thereunder as paragraph (a) and to add a new paragraph (b) to
read in full as follows:(b) Executive shall be deemed to have ceased to serve as an active employee for purposes
of the Companys health care, dental benefits, long and short-term disability, 401(k), life
insurance and other health and welfare plans as of the Separation Date. Such date shall be
deemed to constitute the date of Executives Qualifying Event for COBRA purposes.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement (including the requirement of
Compensation Committee authorization described in Section 2(c)) and to the further
requirement that such reimbursement be exempt from the operation of Section 409A of the
Code, the Company shall reimburse Executive for any additional premiums incurred by
Executive in obtaining continuing COBRA coverage for Executive and Executives family under
such of the health and welfare plans as are subject to COBRA requirements as of the
Separation Date. Such reimbursements shall be grossed-up by the amount of income taxes
payable by Executive thereon, with the intention being that the cost to Executive of such
COBRA coverage should approximate the coverage costs Executive incurred as an active
employee. In the event that such reimbursement is determined not to be exempt from the
operation of the above-referenced Section 409A, the commencement of such reimbursement
payments shall be delayed until the First Payroll Date (with a catch-up payment to be made
on such Date). Executive shall cease to be eligible to contribute to the Companys
Employee Stock Purchase and 401(k) plans as of the Separation Date.
  eFUNDS CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Paul F. WalshIts: CEO/s/ Clyde ThomasExecutive
 3
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 Median Group Inc a Texas corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the  six
    months period ending September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
    Andrew Hwan Lee, I, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
    ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
    of the Company.  A signed
    original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Median Group Inc, and will be retained by
    Median Group Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/
    Andrew Hwan Lee------------------------------------Andrew Hwan LeeChief Executive
    OfficerMarch
        23, 2018
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-07-004 March 13, 2007

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2006 PERFORMANCE AT ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with Florida Power & Light

officials March 27 to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance for 2006 at the St.

Lucie nuclear power plant, located at Jensen Beach, Fla, near Ft. Pierce.

The 3:00 p.m. meeting at the St. Lucie Energy Encounter Building, located at 6501 S. A1A at

Jensen Beach, is open to public observation. Before the meeting ends, NRC staff will be available to

answer public questions on the plant’s safety performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe

operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the St. Lucie plant and all of the nation’s

other commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This

meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, local officials and residents

near the plant.” 

 The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess

performance. The colors start with “green” and increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate

with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

The NRC said the St. Lucie plant operated safely during the 2006 assessment period, from 

Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, with all inspection findings being of very low safety significance and all

performance indicators indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a

result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant during 2007. The NRC

staff will also perform inspections of the independent spent fuel storage installation, potential for

containment building emergency recirculation sump blockage, followup on steam generator

replacement and reactor head replacement. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stl_2006q4.pdf .

Current information for the St. Lucie plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL1/stl1_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL2/stl2_chart.html . 

 #
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60112

Summary Calendar

GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; WALTER INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; BEST INSURORS, INCORPORATED; 

MID STATE CAPITAL, L.L.C.; MID STATE TRUST II; MID STATE TRUST 

III; MID STATE TRUST IV; MID STATE TRUST V; MID STATE TRUST VI; 

MID STATE TRUST VII; MID STATE TRUST VIII; MID STATE TRUST IX; 

MID STATE TRUST X; MID STATE TRUST XI; WILMINGTON TRUST 

COMPANY; MID-STATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 2004-1 TRUST; MIDSTATE CAPITAL CORPORATION 2005-1 TRUST; MID-STATE CAPITAL 

CORPORATION 2006-1 TRUST; MID-STATE CAPITAL TRUST 2010-1, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

ELVERT HORNE; ASHLEY HORNE, 

 Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CV-47

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 17, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60112 Document: 00514241997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2017
No. 17-60112

2

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon binding 

precedent in a virtually identical case. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles, 

872 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2017).

 Case: 17-60112 Document: 00514241997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2017