alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

April 11, 2013

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We were previously principal accountants for China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation and, under the date of March 22, 2013, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation as of and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 and the effectiveness of China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. On March 22, 2013, we were notified that the auditor-client relationship between KPMG and China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation will cease upon completion of the audit of China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, and the issuance of our reports thereon. On April 11, 2013 we completed our audit and issued our reports that were included in the Company’s Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012.

 

We have read China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation’s statements included under Item 16F of its annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the statements that: “(1) During the two most recent fiscal years and through April 11, 2013, neither we nor anyone on our behalf consulted PwC regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed; or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the registrant’s financial statements, or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a “disagreement” (as defined in Item 16F(a)(1)(iv) of Form 20-F and related instructions to Item 16-F of Form 20-F) with PwC or a “reportable event” (as described in Item 16F(a)(1)(v) of Form 20-F). and (2) Also, during the two most recent fiscal years and through April 11, 2013, we have not obtained any written report or oral advice that PwC concluded was an important factor considered by us in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue.”

 
| Very truly yours,   |   |
|---------------------|--------|
|                |   |
|                |   |
| /s/ KPMG            |   |
| Hong Kong, China    |   |
| April 11, 2013 |   |

 

----
#### § 1.346 Limitation.

The complaint referred to in § 1.307 of this part with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 1.308 of this part within 6 years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
EXHIBIT
23.2
 
 
 
 
 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-157406) and Form S-8 (No. 333-108162, 333-118976, 333-118977,
333-124964, 333-143203, 333-143204 and 333-158922) of Noble Energy, Inc. of our
reportdated
February 12, 2010, relating to the financial statements of Alba Plant LLC, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009.
 
  
  /s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
  Houston,
TX
 February
17, 2010
  1
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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 accompanying quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Madison Explorations Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, I
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1) the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Madison Explorations Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 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
quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, fairly
presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Madison Explorations Inc..

/s/ Steven Cozine By: Steven Cozine Title: Chief
Financial Officer

Date: November 12, 2008

---
X1-091207-003
X1-091207-003
Exhibit 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Peter Zachariou, certify that:

      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PRIMA EASTWEST
MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC.;

      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;

      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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      The small business issuer'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 small
business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

      The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  November 10, 2005

/s/ Peter Zachariou
--------------------
Peter Zachariou
Princial Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer
#### *Noland vs. Richards.*

Chancery.

Case 152.

Error to the Montgomery Circuit; Silas W. Robbins Judge,

*Injunction. Damages. Practice.*

¡June 17.

The sum jipon which damages are rendered, should be as-pertained . Erroneous to leave it to the enquiry and decision of *583the clerk; Error to de-* cree damages twice.

*582Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In March, 1825, the court dissolved Noland’s injunction with damages. The amount of damages awarded are not stated upon the record, but they are to be ascertained by reference to the judgment, and a calculation made thereon, at the rate of ten per cent, upon the amount therepf. If in any case, it would be correct to leave the damages unsettled by the court, and refer it to the clerk, in this instance it cannot be sustained; because the criterion furnished *583íis the basis of the calculation, is wrong. The court awarded ten per cent, damages, on the amount of the whole judgment, when the defendant acknowledges a credit. Damages should certainly not be given on the amount credited. It does not appear in the record, whit sum was credited. The court should have settled it, and not left it to the clerk; In September,-1827, a final decree was rendered, again dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill, and awarding ten percent damages on $64 17 3-4 cents; Why damages should again be given on this sum, does not appear, and why they should be limited to this sum, does not appear. It was clearly erroneous to give damages' twice.

Denny, for plaintiff; *Hanson,*for defendant.

Wherefore, both decrees awarding damages, must be and are hereby reversed and set aside, and the cause remanded.

The plaintiff in error must recover his costs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DONALD M. WHITE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-427 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed January 2, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; William Sites, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 5, 2015 519084 

________________________________

In the Matter of JUAN RIVAS, 

Petitioner, 

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

 CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

 SUPERVISION et al., 

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: December 2, 2014

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Juan Rivas, Napanoch, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to

review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Eastern

Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating

a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

challenging a tier II disciplinary hearing finding him guilty of

violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has

advised this Court that the determination has been

administratively reversed, all references thereto have been

expunged from petitioner's disciplinary record, and the mandatory

$5 surcharge has been ordered refunded to petitioner's inmate

account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received

all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is
-2- 519084 

dismissed as moot (see Matter of Dexter v Fischer, 120 AD3d 1468,

1468 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
  /s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer  122
#### Gaby Burdeau, an Infant, by Theresa M. Burdeau, His Parent, et al., Respondents, v. Harold Burdeau, Appellant.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon a trial verdict awarding damages for negligence to the plaintiffs. The defendant, among other things, contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider whether or not the plaintiff was an invitee upon the defendant’s premises and that the court erred in charging the jury that on the facts of the case they might find that the open container of gasoline which resulted in injury to the plaintiff infant was a hazardous situation. As to whether or not the infant was an invitee, the photographs of the premises admitted into evidence clearly establish that the area where the accident occurred and where the plaintiffs lived was contiguous and that there was no physical separation of the properties. Since the defendant owned both parcels of property and the plaintiffs were invitees on the parcel where they lived, it could be inferred that the plaintiffs were invitees as to the entire property. In any event, the defendant took no exception to the court’s charge as to the question of invitee and that it was a question for the jury and accordingly, the charge has become the law of the ease. As to the alleged error in letting the jury consider whether or not the defendant had created a hazardous situation, the court had charged that in regard to being an invitee, the defendant’s duty was one of reasonable care and the “hazardous situation” instructions were limited to trespassers and licensees. The trial court specifically charged that gasoline is not an inherently dangerous substance or material as a matter of law. We cannot say on the present record that leaving an unidentified uncovered container of gasoline in one’s residential yard at night is not sufficient to create an inherently hazardous condition. (Cf. *Carradine*v. *City of New*York, 13 N Y 2d 291; but see *Morse*v. *Buffalo Tank Corp*280 N. Y. 110.) With the exception of the further claim that the verdict for the plaintiff father was excessive, the defendant’s other contentions are without merit. The jury awarded the father $8,000. The proof shows hospital and physician’s expenses totaling $6,258.55. There is no proof of the loss of any services nor was there any proof of expenses incurred by virtue of trips to the hospital by the mother and father and accordingly the verdict must be reduced to $6,258.55. Judgment and order, in respect of the derivative cause of action only, reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial of said derivative cause of action ordered unless, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the amount of the verdict upon said derivative cause of action to $6,258.55, in which event order and judgment upon said derivative cause of action, as so reduced, affirmed; failing such stipulation such new trial of the derivative cause of action to be restricted to the issue of damages; and judgment and order in all other respects affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 118 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 118

  To prohibit agencies from issuing vaccine passports, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the 
  Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit agencies from issuing vaccine passports, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Vaccine Passports Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AGENCIES ISSUING VACCINE PASSPORTS.

    (a) In General.--An agency may not issue a vaccine passport, 
vaccine pass, or other standardized documentation for the purpose of 
certifying the COVID-19 vaccination status of a citizen of the United 
States to a third party, or otherwise publish or share any COVID-19 
vaccination record of a citizen of the United States, or similar health 
information.
    (b) Agency Defined.--In this section, the term ``agency'' has the 
meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING PROOF OF COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR 
              FEDERAL ACCESS.

    Proof of COVID-19 vaccination shall not be deemed a requirement for 
access to Federal property or Federal services, or for access to 
congressional grounds or services.
                                 <all>
```
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           The Affordable Care Act and Adolescents      

# The Affordable Care Act and Adolescents

This brief from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and the Office of Adolescent Health provides data on the eligible uninsured adolescent population, as well as the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that will have an impact on young people. An accompanying infographic (PDF, 1 page) features some of the highlights.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/Adolescents/rb_adolescent.cfm
#### Margaret Tarvin, Administratrix of Estate of Murel Tarvin, Deceased, Appellee, v. George Ennen, Appellant.

Gen. No. 9,604.

opinion filed February 14, 1941.

Milo J. Fleming, for appellant; Edward F. Braden, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice Huffman.

“Hot to be published, in full.’ ’
970.0371-6 Incompatibility between regular duties and private interests. ( a ) Employees of a management and operating contractor shall not be permitted to make or influence any decisions on behalf of the contractor which directly or indirectly affect the interest of the Government, if the employee's personal concern in the matter may be incompatible with the interest of the Government. For example: An employee of a contractor will not negotiate, or influence the award of, a subcontract with a company in which the individual has an employment relationship or significant financial interest; and an employee of a contractor will not be assigned the preparation of an evaluation for DOE or for any DOE contractor of some technical aspect of the work of another organization with which the individual has an employment relationship, or significant financial interest, or which is a competitor of an organization (other than the contractor who is the individual's regular employer) in which the individual has an employment relationship or significant financial interest.
( b ) The contractor shall be responsible for informing employees that they are expected to disclose any incompatibilities between duties performed for the contractor and their private interests and to refer undecided questions to the contractor.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6500

RANDALL GRAY STONEMAN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE SOLOMON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00836-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall Gray Stoneman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall Gray Stoneman, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing in part as untimely, and 

denying relief in part on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Stoneman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny Stoneman’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED