alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.58



                              AFFIRMATION AGREEMENT

     This Affirmation Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of September
20, 2000 by American Mutual Holding Company, an Iowa stock company and survivor
of a merger with AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc. ("the Reorganized Company"), in
favor of the Agent and the Lenders (as hereinafter defined) under the Facility
Agreement referenced below.

                               W I T N E S S E T H

     WHEREAS, AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc., an Iowa corporation ("AmerUs Life"),
Bank One, NA (f/k/a The First National Bank of Chicago), individually and as
Agent ("Agent"), and the other financial institutions signatory thereto (the
"Lenders") are parties to that certain $27,500,000 Facility and Guaranty
Agreement dated as of February 12, 1999 (as previously amended, the "Facility
Agreement").


     WHEREAS, substantially contemporaneously herewith, AmerUs Life is merging
with and into the Reorganized Company, which is the surviving corporation in
such merger (the "Merger").


     NOW, THEREFORE, as an inducement to the Lenders to have the "Delayed
Amendments" under Amendment No. 2 to the Facility Agreement become effective as
of the consummation of the Merger, the Reorganized Company, in its capacity as
successor by merger to AmerUs Life, hereby acknowledges that it is the "Company"
under the Facility Agreement and hereby assumes and agrees to pay and perform
all Obligations of the Company under the Facility Agreement and the other Loan
Documents (as defined in the Facility Agreement).


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Agreement as of the
date written above.

                                    AMERICAN MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY
                                    By:  /s/ Roger K. Brooks
                                         --------------------------------------

                                    Name:   Roger K. Brooks
                                    Title:  Chairman, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer
Case No. 14,978.

#### UNITED STATES v. DOLAN.

[5 Blatchf. 284.] 1

Circuit Court, E. D. New York.

Dec., 1865.

Assault with Intext to Kill—Whether Indictable under United States Statute.

The circuit _ court of the United States for the Eastern district of New York has. by virtue of the act of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat. 115), jurisdiction of an indictment for an assault with intent to kill, committed in the navy yard at Brooklyn.

This was an indictment [against Philip Dolan] for an assault with intent to kill, committed in the navy yard at Brooklyn. The defendant now moved to quash the indictment, on the ground that the act of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat 115), on which it was founded, did not create the offence charged, and that there was no statute of the United States creating the offence

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatchford, District Judge. »nd here reprinted by permission.]

THE COURT

(BENEDICT, District Judge)

held, that the act of March 3d, 1825, covered the case; that the question had been substantially decided by the supreme court, in the case of U. S. v. Paul, 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 141, and that Mr. Justice Thompson, Mr. Justice Nelson, and Judge Betts, had held, in the. United States courts for the Southern district of New York, that the act of 1S25 applied to cases of the kind. Motion denied.
**Exhibit 14.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

 

 

 

The Management Board and Supervisory Board 

Allianz Aktiengesellschaft: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Allianz of America, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of AllianzAktiengesellschaft (“Allianz”) of our report dated April 19, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Allianz and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Allianz Group”) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and therelated consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of changes in shareholders’ equity and consolidated cash flow statements for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the financial statementSchedules I, II, III and IV, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Allianz. 

 

 

Aktiengesellschaft

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft 

 

KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft 

Aktiengesellschaft 

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft 

 

Munich, Germany 

April 19, 2005 

 

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHARLES MCCLOSKEY, [AY-3992], : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner :

:

v. : NO. 05-230

:

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF :

PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., :

Respondents. :

O R D E R

STENGEL, J.

AND NOW, this day of December, 2005, upon careful and independent

consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Government's Response and

Petitioner's Reply thereto, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. Nos. 1,3) is DENIED with

prejudice;

3. Petitioner's Application for an Immediate Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt. Nos. 17, 21),

his Petition for the Court to take Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 24), his Motion to

Expedite (Dkt. No. 26), and his Amendment and Motion for Leave to Amend

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 27) are DENIED.

4. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue because we do not believe

Petitioner has made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and

Case 2:05-cv-00230-LS Document 32 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 2
5. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00230-LS Document 32 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1446 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 389
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1446

                          [Report No. 115-234]

    To reauthorize the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
                     Historic Preservation program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2017

Ms. Harris (for herself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             April 25, 2018

              Reported by Ms. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
                     Historic Preservation program.

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

SECTION 1. HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HISTORIC 
              PRESERVATION PROGRAM REAUTHORIZED.

    Section 507(d)(2) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management 
Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 302101 note) is amended by striking the period 
at the end and inserting ``and each of fiscal years 2018 through 
2024.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 389

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1446

                          [Report No. 115-234]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To reauthorize the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
                     Historic Preservation program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 25, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 185-3 Filed 01/07/2004 Page 13 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-05667-BMS Document 1 Filed 12/07/04 Page 13 of 13
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1266 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into 

contracts with nonprofit organizations to investigate 

medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1266 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enhancing Veteran 

3 Care Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DE5 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 may contract with a nonprofit organization that accredits 

8 health care organizations and programs in the United 

9 States to investigate a medical center of the Department 

10 of Veterans Affairs to assess and report deficiencies of the 

11 facilities at such medical center. 

12 (b) AUTHORITY OF DIRECTORS.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to coordination 

14 under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall delegate 

15 the authority under subsection (a) to contract for an 

16 investigation at a medical center of the Department 

17 to the Director of the Veterans Integrated Service 

18 Network in which the medical center is located or 

19 the director of such medical center. 

20 (2) COORDINATION.—Before entering into a 

21 contract under paragraph (1), the Director of a Vet22 erans Integrated Service Network or the director of 

23 a medical center, as the case may be, shall notify the 

24 Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Inspector General 

25 of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the 

26 Comptroller General of the United States for pur-
3 

†S 1266 ES

1 poses of coordinating any investigation conducted 

2 pursuant to such contract with any other investiga3 tions that may be ongoing. 

4 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec5 tion may be construed— 

6 (1) to prevent the Office of the Inspector Gen7 eral of the Department of Veterans Affairs from 

8 conducting any review, audit, evaluation, or inspec9 tion regarding a topic for which an investigation is 

10 conducted under this section; or 

11 (2) to modify the requirement that employees of 

12 the Department assist with any review, audit, eval13 uation, or inspection conducted by the Office of the 

14 Inspector General of the Department. 

Passed the Senate November 9, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1266 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

of Veterans Affairs. to investigate medical centers of the Department enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           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 Annual Report of The Art Boutique,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Michael
R. Butler, Chief Financial Officer of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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 Sction 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 R. Butler
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Michael R. Butler, CFO

Dated:  1/29/02
No. 49077.

#### Protests 82814-K, etc., of Bolivian Hat Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion-by

Tilson, _J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
October 7, 1946

No. 51340.

#### Petition 6412-R of G. J. Kluyskens.

Abstract 50982. Petitioner’s application for rehearing granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FERNANDO NUNEZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 10 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : No. 04-3509 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2012, the following is ordered: 

C “Defendants Lexington Insurance Company’s and AIU Insurance

Company’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum” (doc. no.

425) is granted; and

C “Defendants Lexington Insurance Company’s and AIU Insurance

Company’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order and

Opinion Entered on January 30, 2012" (doc. no. 413) is denied. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J. 

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 457 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

April 11, 1961

No. 65431.

#### Juillard Fancy Foods Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/31596, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in . all material respects to . that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
### Order filed January 27, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ 

### NO. 14

- 14

- 00769

- CV

____________ 

### IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF DANIEL B ANDA AND LINA MARIA MARTINEZ

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 68191



### ORDER

On November 13, 2014, this court referred this case to mediation. On January 13, 2015, the parties notified this court that the case had settled in mediation on January 12, 2015. To date, we have not received the parties ’ motion to dismiss the appeal, or other dispositive motion. The parties also have not requested an extension of time to file a dispositive motion.

This court’s mediation order states, in pertinent part: “If mediation fully resolves the issues in the case, the court ORDERS the parties to file a motion to dismiss the appeal, other dispositive motion, or a motion for additional time to file the dispositivemotion, within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation .” The parties have not

complied with this cour t’s order.
Accordingly, we ORDER the parties to file a motion to dismiss, other dispositive motion, or a motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion on or before February 13, 2015.

PER CURIAM
#### T.R. ELLIS, Appellant, v. MILLER OIL PURCHASING COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 84-1265.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 1984.

Decided June 29, 1984.

*270M. Mark Lesher, Texarkana, Tex., for appellant.

Victor Hlavinka, Bradley C. Poulos, Atchley, Russell, Waldrop & Hlavinka, Texarkana, Tex., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

T.R. Ellis appeals the trial court’s ruling excluding expert testimony in his negligence action. The trial court ruled that the testimony invaded the province of the jury. We affirm.

On or about July 4, 1979, Ellis had parked four of his tractor-trailer vehicles along the roadside of Highway 71 in Miller County, Arkansas. A Miller Oil Purchasing Company truck struck another car near where the tractor-trailers were parked. The truck overturned, spilling its cargo of crude oil. The oil caught fire and spread, damaging Ellis’s vehicles.

Ellis filed suit for damages against Miller Oil which in turn filed a counterclaim. The case went to trial with each side claiming the other’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. At trial, Ellis called A.O. Pipkin, an accident reconstruction expert, to testify concerning the cause of accident. After establishing Pipkin’s qualifications and familiarity with the scene of the accident, Ellis’s counsel asked whether Pipkin had arrived at any conclusions regarding the proper action for the Miller Oil Company driver just prior to the accident. The trial court sustained an objection to this question, noting that the expert was in no better position than the jury to determine the answer. A verdict in favor of Miller Oil was returned and Ellis appeals, contending that the trial court’s ruling excluding this testimony was in error.

Where the subject matter is within the knowledge or experience of lay people, expert testimony is superfluous. *Bartak v. Bell-Galyardt & Wells, Inc.,*629 F.2d 523, 530 (8th Cir.1980). Whether to admit expert testimony rests in the discretion of the trial judge. Fed.R.Evid. 703; *Holmgren v. Massey-Ferguson,*516 F.2d 856, 858 (8th Cir.1975). We do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in this instance. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
# C_2018427EN.01004001.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)

(Case T-93/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VANGUARD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VANGUARD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---
|                                                                                 |  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
| GAP HomeProgram InfoMaps and DataGap Online Analysis ToolLiteratureApplications |
|                                                                                 |

Maps, Data, & Reports
** > **
**View Final Reports**

|  |
|--|
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

Victor Chavez
, * From the 161st District Court of Ector County, Trial Court No. A

- 19

- 1372

- CR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 1 97

- CR * May 12 , 2022

The State of Texas
, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
No. 52217.

protests 696845-G, etc. (New York).

#### Fuchs *&*Lang Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2017144EN.01006301.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/63

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)

(Case T-356/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/96)

Language of the case: German

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

1

---