alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO 

PADILLA, CECILIA LINARES, 

AUGUSTINA BLANCO, ABEL 

GONZALEZ, and RICHARD JENNINGS, 

On Behalf of Themselves and All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and 

REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida 

corporation; and TARGET 

CORPORATION, a Minnesota 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 11 CV 07972

CLASS ACTION

Judge James B. Zagel

DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL

Jeffrey I. Carton and Peter N. Freiberg, appearing herein as counsel for Plaintiff Richard 

Jennings pro hac vice, hereby designate the following member of the Bar of this Court as local 

counsel pursuant to Local Rule 83.15(a), upon whom service of papers may be made:

Carol V. Gilden

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 357-0370

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 67 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:412
- 2 -

DATED: May 2, 2013

 BY: /s/ Peter N. Freiberg_______________ 

Peter N. Freiberg (admitted pro hac vice)

Jeffrey I. Carton (admitted pro hac vice)

DENLEA & CARTON LLP 

One North Broadway, Suite 509

White Plains, New York 10601

Telephone: (914) 920-7400

Attorneys for Plaintiff Richard Jennings

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 67 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:413
# FY08_07_Volume

# Sheet1
(May 28, 1964)

#### Elizabeth W. Morris, Respondent, v. Ernest B. Morris et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which denied defendants’ motions to modify and limit the scope and subjects of their respective examinations before trial, as specified in plaintiff’s notices thereof. The examinations sought are in some respects more extensive and burdensome than the present necessities of the litigation require and the order appealed from is therefore modified, on the law and the facts (1) so as to dispense with the production of original papers used upon the prior proceedings in the action, without prejudice to a later application, upon good cause shown, to require the production of specific documents; (2) so as to limit any examination concerning the financial circumstances of defendant Ernest B. Morris to the nature and extent of his assets, his debts and liabilities and his income, each during the period from February 1, 1961 to August 2, 1961; and (3) so as to direct that such examination be conducted before Honorable Roger W. Daniels, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, commencing on the 15th day of June, 1964, at 10:00 a.m., at the County Court House in the City of Albany; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

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

                                  ENDORSEMENT
                            ADDITIONAL DEATH BENEFIT


We are amending your Contract to add the Annual Reset Death Benefit described in
the following provisions.

ANNUAL RESET DEATH BENEFIT - Beginning on the 6th Contract Anniversary, we will
determine an annual reset anniversary value on each Contract Anniversary
occurring before the earlier of the deceased Owner's 80th birthday or the
deceased Owner's date of death. Each annual reset anniversary value is equal to
the sum of: the Contract Value on that Contract Anniversary; plus all Purchase
Payments since that Contract Anniversary; minus all amounts surrendered,
including associated surrender charges, since that Contract Anniversary.

If the Owner's death occurs on or before the deceased Owner's 90th birthday
the death benefit will equal the greatest of: (1) the death benefit described
in your Contract; or (2) the greatest annual reset anniversary value
attained. If the Owner's death occurs after the deceased Owner's 90th
birthday the death benefit will equal the death benefit described in your
Contract.

Only one death benefit is payable under this Contract even though the
Contract may, under certain circumstances, continue beyond the death of any
Owner.

MULTIPLE BENEFICIARIES - If there is more than one Beneficiary, provisions
relating to the distribution of the death benefit apply to each Beneficiary
individually.

Signed for the Company and made a part of the Contract as of the Effective Date.

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

      /s/ Deborah J. Long

           Secretary
1532.1070 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall utilize the clause at 1552.332-39, *Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations* (FAR DEVIATION) in all solicitations and contracts in lieu of nondeviated FAR 52.232-39.
( b ) The contracting officer shall utilize the clause at 1552.232-75, *Commercial Supplier Agreements-Unenforceable Clauses,* in all procurements where supplies or services are offered under a commercial supplier agreement (CSA).
[86 FR 55713, Oct. 7, 2021] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: At 86 FR 55713, Oct. 7, 2021, Subpart 1532.10 was added with undesignated text. This text could not be added due to incorrect amendatory instruction.
**EXHIBIT
12.2**
 **CERTIFICATION**
  I, David
Wolfin, President of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd., certify
that:
  
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd.;
 
 2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;
 
 3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company
      as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.
    The
      Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and
      have:
 
 (a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the Company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
 
 (b)
    Omitted;
 
 (c)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (d)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent annual report
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.
    The
      Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company'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 a significant role in the Company's internal control
      over financial reporting.
  ****Dated: July 12,
2005
    By:
    /s/ *David
      Wolfin*David
      Wolfin, President(Principal Financial
      Officer)
#### Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York v. Michael Janicki.

Motion for an order setting aside, modifying or vacating the alleged paternity and support of three children denied. There is no basis for the relief requested. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; NIMHD Mentored Career Development Awards (Ks).                    

*Date:*                         March 1, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Xinli Nan, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Programs, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-7784,                         *Xinli.Nan@nih.gov.*

Dated: January 12, 2021.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00979 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 **PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
        1934**
 **AND
        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
        (the
“Report”), the undersigned, Michael J. Mele, as Chief Financial Officer of the
        Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        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.
 
  /s/
        Michael J. Mele
 Michael
        J. Mele
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 Date:
        July 22, 2005
#### 19.202 Specific policies.

In order to further the policy in 19.201(a), contracting officers shall comply with the specific policies listed in this section and shall consider recommendations of the agency Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, or for the Department of Defense, the Director of the Office of Small Business Programs, or the Director's designee, as to whether a particular acquisition should be awarded under subpart 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15. Agencies shall establish procedures including dollar thresholds for review of acquisitions by the Director or the Director's designee for the purpose of making these recommendations. The contracting officer shall document the contract file whenever the Director's recommendations are not accepted, in accordance with 19.506.

[85 FR 11758, Feb. 27, 2020]
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, JeffreyD. Cushman, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| / s /   Jeffrey D.  Cushman         |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |
| Jeffrey D. Cushman                                 |
| Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                                               |
| April 2, 2007                                      |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 USC Section1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40321

Summary Calendar

In The Matter Of: WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH,

Debtor.

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

WILLIAM HAYES WYTTENBACH,

Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

(07-CV-180) 

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Hayes Wyttenbach appeals an order affirming the bankruptcy

court’s “Order StrikingPleadings and Retroactively Annulling Automatic Stay.”

The bankruptcy court held that Wyttenbach was ineligible to be a debtor because

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
he did not comply with the credit counseling requirements in 11 U.S.C. § 109(h).

Wyttenbach appealed to the Southern District of Texas but neither

disputed that he failed to fulfill the credit counseling requirements nor

contended that the bankruptcy court’s reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) was in

error. Instead, Wyttenbach challenged the bankruptcy court’s order only on the

grounds that he filed his chapter 7 petition as a “man,” not a “trust”—grounds

upon which the bankruptcy court did not rely. In his current brief, Wyttenbach

does not assert that the lower court’s reliance on 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) was

improper; he again argues only that the lower courts misidentified him as a

“trust” rather than a “man.” We conclude that the district court did not err in

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order. 

AFFIRMED.
1401.304 Agency control and compliance procedures. ( a ) ( 1 ) The DIAR System is under the direct oversight and control of the Director, PAM, who is responsible for reviewing and preparing the issuance of all Department-wide and bureau-wide acquisition regulations published in the Federal Register to ensure compliance with FAR Part 1. Review procedures are contained in Part 401 of the Departmental Manual (401 DM) and paragraph (a)(3) of this section. One copy of all material issued shall be furnished to the Director, PAM, at the time of issuance.
( 2 ) The Director, PAM, is also responsible for reviewing and issuing unpublished Department-wide internal guidance under the DIAR System.
( 3 ) A bureau wishing to issue bureau-wide regulations shall submit a request to the Director, PAM, for authority to proceed with the regulation. The request shall include a justification for the regulation and a proposed outline of the regulation and the significant contents of the coverage to be included. The Director, PAM, shall review the request to determine whether the regulation should be considered for inclusion in the DIAR or FAR. If a determination is made that the regulation is appropriate for inclusion in the DIAR or FAR, PAM will process the regulation accordingly. If a determination is made that the regulation is appropriate for inclusion in bureau-wide regulations only, the Director, PAM, shall assign an appendix to 48 CFR Chapter 14 and authorization shall be granted for the bureau to proceed with the regulation in accordance with the procedures referenced in 1401.301(b). Rulemaking notices shall be submitted to the Director, PAM, for processing of AS/PMB approval under 401 DM 1.4C(3), before the appropriate program Assistant Secretary signs them.
( 4 ) HCAs are responsible for establishing and implementing formal procedures for oversight and control of all unpublished bureau-wide internal guidance issued to implement FAR or DIAR requirements. The Director, PAM, shall review and approve these procedures and they shall include: ( i ) Provisions for centralized issuance of all guidance and instructions using a directives system;
( ii ) Methods for periodic review and updating of all issuances;
( iii ) Distribution processes which ensure timely receipt by all affected contracting offices; and
( iv ) Provisions for maintaining compliance with FAR 1.304.
( b ) The Director, PAM, is responsible for evaluating coverage under the DIAR System to determine applicability to other agencies and for recommending coverage to the FAR Secretariat for inclusion in the FAR.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                    CONSENT OF CONDLEY AND COMPANY, L.L.P.



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A into
Independent Bankshares, Inc.'s two currently effective Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 33-83112 and 333-07567) regarding the Company's
Employee Stock Ownership/401(k) Plan.


                                       /s/ CONDLEY AND COMPANY, L.L.P.
                                       Certified Public Accountants

Abilene, Texas
April 29, 1998
#### Walter N. CURRY, Plaintiff, v. Larry W. LUNDY, Defendant, and Robert Creshaw, Defendant, Supt. Alfred T. Rundle, State Correctional Institution, at Graterford.

Civ. A. No. 70-662.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 16, 1970.

*345Walter N. Curry, pro se.

OPINION

MASTERSON, District Judge.

Presently before this court is plaintiff’s petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint is styled as a Civil Rights Action and suit is brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.1

The substance of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants Lundy and Creshaw, who are fellow inmates of the plaintiff at Graterford, allegedly conspired to destroy plaintiff’s “personal and legal court property.” In addition, it is alleged that Lundy fraudulently induced the plaintiff to pay money to Lundy for the purchase of a law book which was apparently never received by the plaintiff. On the basis of the above, plaintiff seeks judgment against Lundy and Creshaw for the sum of $4,000.00.

There are two essential elements for a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983: (1) that conduct complained of was done by some person acting under color of state or local law; and (2) that such conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Fatal to the instant complaint is its failure to meet the first requirement, supra, in that defendants, Lundy and Creshaw, in their capacity as prisoners, were not acting under color of state or local law.2 Accordingly, plaintiff’s petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as the complaint is plainly lacking in merit. Lockhart v. D’Urso, 408 F.2d 354 (3rd Cir. 1969) 3

1

. Petitioner also cites 28 U.S.C.A. § 2408 as conferring jurisdiction on this Court but that section is not applicable. This Court has jurisdiction over Civil Rights actions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343.

2

. We note that Alfred T. Rundle, who is the superintendent of the institution where plaintiff is incarcerated, was named in the caption but was not designated as a defendant. The body of the complaint makes no factual allegations concerning Rundle, nor are damages sought against him. We must conclude, then, that the inclusion of Rundle in the caption was mere surplusage.

3

. Even if we were to read the complaint as stating a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 it would be subject to the same infirmity, to wit, that the named defendants were not acting under color of state or local law. Insofar as plaintiff’s complaint can be construed to enumerate various forms of civil actions (fraud, deceit, breach of contract) we are without jurisdiction since neither diversity of citizenship is alleged nor is the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy.