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

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                          [BANK OF NEW YORK LETTERHEAD]

                                BANK OF NEW YORK

                              Officer's Certificate

                          -----------------------------
                                February 21, 2006



MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.
North Tower, 7th Floor
4 World Financial Center
New York, New York 10080

              PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUS TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Thomas J. Bogert, the Vice President-Manager of The Bank of New
York, a New York corporation (the "Trustee"), hereby certifies in such capacity
that, based on his knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in all material
respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the
Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill
Lynch Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the "Depositor") and the Trustee, as
successor to United States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities
intermediary (the "Securities Intermediary"), in each case as amended by a
series supplement between the Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities
Intermediary for each series of trust certificates listed in the attached
schedule.




                                    Very truly yours,

                                    BANK OF NEW YORK


                                    By: /s/ Thomas J. Bogert
                                        ------------------------
                                    Name:  Thomas J. Bogert
                                    Title: Vice President


<PAGE>


                                    SCHEDULE

Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 HLT-1 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 TRV-C1 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1999 REN-C1 Trust
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLS-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ATT-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series NAI-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series MSD-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series UPC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series FAR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series GRC-1
PPLUS Trust Series PMC-1
PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1
PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1
PPLUS Trust Series FMC-1
PPLUS Trust Series GSG-2
PPLUS Trust Series DCC-1
PPLUS Trust Series CSF-1
PPLUS Trust Series SPR-1
PPLUS Trust Series TWC-1
PPLUS Trust Series CMT-1
PPLUS Trust Series GSC-1
PPLUS Trust Series DCNA-1
PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2
PPLUS Trust Series JPM-1
PPLUS Trust Series LMG-3
INDEXPLUS Trust 2003-1

                                       2
No. 53641.

protests 128440-K, etc. (New York).

#### Wiseman Fried & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Taub, Hummel & Schnall, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7322.

Invoice dated Nottingham, England, May 6, 1946.

Certified May 13, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 5, 1946.

Entry No. 766179.

(Decided June 27, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8432 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8432

        To codify Executive Order 13809, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2024

    Mr. Good of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Moore of 
   Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To codify Executive Order 13809, 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 ``Protect Our Police Act''.

SEC. 2. CODIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13809.

    (a) In General.--Executive Order 13809 (82 Fed. Reg. 41499; 
restoring State, Tribal, and local law enforcement's access to life-
saving equipment and resources), as in effect on August 28, 2017, shall 
have the force and effect of law, without modification, unless modified 
or authorized to be modified after the date of the enactment of this 
Act by a subsequent Act of Congress.
    (b) Limitation on Subsequent Executive Orders.--In accordance with 
subsection (a), the President may not reinstate the Executive Order 
revoked by Executive Order 13809 or establish any substantially similar 
Executive Order.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.3

 

CERTIFICATE OF VALIDATION

OF

CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

OF

BIOPHARMX CORPORATION

 

Pursuant to Section 204 of the
 General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

 

BioPharmX Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), certifies as follows:

 

1.                                      On January 22, 2015, the board of directors of the Corporation adopted the resolutions attached hereto (without the exhibits thereto) as EXHIBIT A.  On February 2, 2015, the stockholders of the Corporation, acting by written consent in lieu of a meeting in accordance with Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, adopted the resolutions attached hereto (without the exhibits thereto) as EXHIBIT B.  The foregoing resolutions of the board of directors and of the stockholders were duly adopted by the board of directors and by the stockholders, respectively, in accordance with the provisions of Section 204 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), and, in the case of stockholders, in accordance with Section 228 of the DGCL

 

2.                                      The defective corporate act ratified pursuant to Section 204 of the DGCL and set forth in the resolutions attached hereto would have required the filing of Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series A Preferred Stock of the Corporation (the “Designation”) in accordance with Section 103 of the DGCL on April 25, 2014.  Attached hereto as EXHIBIT C is the Designation as should have been filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on April 25, 2014, and, upon the filing of this Certificate of Validation, such Designation will be validated as of 12:01 a.m. on April 25, 2014.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Validation to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 17th day of March, 2015.

 

	
 
    	
BIOPHARMX   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   James Pekarsky
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
James   Pekarsky
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer,
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Claudio Gianascio, Chief Executive Officer
and  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to
the best of his or her knowledge:





1. The Company's Amended Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,  2007, and
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "PERIODIC REPORT")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in
the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report
and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
Report.





Dated:
August 12, 2008








S/ Claudio
Gianascio


Claudio
Gianascio


CEO &
CFO





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





THIS
CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF
SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.







---
#### In the Matter of William P. Capote, Appellant, v Michael J. Dowling, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 130]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated November 30, 1993, which, after a hearing, excluded the petitioner from participating in the Medicaid program for a period of five years.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondents proffered substantial evidence that the petitioner, a physician and a duly enrolled Medicaid provider, on numerous occasions engaged in unacceptable billing practices by submitting false claims, failing to maintain adequate records, providing care and services that were not medically necessary, and failing to meet professionally recognized standards. Accordingly, the respondents’ determination that the petitioner failed to meet professionally recognized standards for health care in violation of 18 NYCRR part 515, must be confirmed *(see, Matter of Hunter v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*190 AD2d 851).

Moreover, the sanction imposed is consistent with the proper guidelines *(see,*18 NYCRR 515.4), and is not so disproportionate to the nature of the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222; *Matter of Constant v New York State Dept, of Social Servs.,*215 AD2d 555; *Matter of Ghosal v Bane,*204 AD2d 215).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
FRONTIER FUNDS



Exhibit
32.6



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C.§1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Heritage Fund, a Series of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Frontier Heritage Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                                                                                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/
                                         Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                          
|Patrick
    J. Kane                                                                                                                                                                   
|Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer
and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC,
the Managing Owner of Frontier Funds
        
        August 14, 2018
#### In the Matter of Nicole F., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Theron J., Respondent; Commissioner of Social Services, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 78]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about June 23, 1995, which reinstated unsupervised visitation between respondent father and his daughter, Nicole F., unanimously modified, on the facts, to the extent of making the visitations supervised pending the determination of the neglect petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*266In view of respondent’s long and violent criminal history, including at least three felony convictions for assault, none of which had been disclosed or discovered prior to the agreement of the parties to release the two-year-old child to his custody; the question of whether respondent had organic brain damage as a result of a shooting and a May 1995 incident in which respondent shook and yelled at the crying child after an unsupervised visit, Family Court erred in granting respondent unsupervised visitation. The safer course, and the one which serves the best interests of the child, is to continue with supervised visitation pending the determination of the neglect petition *(see, Matter of Jennifer G.,*105 AD2d 701, 702; *Susan G. B. v Yehiel B.-H., 216*AD2d 58). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
No. 47385.

#### Protests 1236-K/88656, etc., of Davies, Turner & Co. (Chicago).

*381Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the evidence submitted it was found that this case comes well within the ruling of this court in *Myer*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 191, C. D. 459) which held that woven fabrics in chief value of metal thread worn, by a commissioned officer in the Air Corps of the United States Army are not covered by any of the provisions of paragraph 1529 but are dutiable under paragraph 385. The protests were therefore sustained as to certain of the items in question.
Before the Third Division,

June 18, 1959

No. 63180.

#### Coro, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/14926, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mother-of-pearl disks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Paramount Import Export Co. et al.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 82, C.A.D. 677), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

Memo 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472 

From: Joseph McDonald, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 

Re: March 30, 2009 Automotive News Article – “Mazda: Don’t believe hota air being emitted by 

hybrid hype” 

A hard copy of the March 30, 2009 Automotive News Article entitled “Mazda: Don’t believe hota air 

being emitted by hybrid hype” is available within EPA’s Docket Center. 

This document has been copyrighted and is not available in the electronic docket. Parties that wish to 

view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. 

The article quotes Seita Kanai, Director, Research and Development, Mazda Motor Corp., regarding 

Mazda’s plans for reducing vehicle curb weigh by 100 kg for each new vehicle undergoing redesign via 

re-engineering of vehicle structures.
No. 38902.

#### Protests 942303-G, etc., of Baumgold Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN ANTHONY STOVALL, Airman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 291, 36 CMR 447

No. 19,475

July 8, 1966

*Lieutenant Warren K. Morgens,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel J. E. Hawthorn,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam :

From the record of trial it appears that the accused pleaded guilty pursuant to a pretrial agreement with the *convening authority,*in which it was provided that, in return for such plea, any adjudged bad-conduct discharge would be suspended for a period of six months. Following the plea and the findings of guilty based thereon, the court sentenced the accused to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $62.00 per month for six months, and confinement at hard labor for six months. In acting on the case, the convening authority approved the sentence and suspended the bad-conduct discharge for the *period of confinement and an additional period of six months.*Such was a substantial variation from the pretrial understanding with the accused concerning the period of suspension and was prejudicially erroneous. Cf. United States v Hamill, 8 USCMA 464, 24 CMR 274; United States v Butts, 7 USCMA 472, 22 CMR 262.

The petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board shall take appropriate action to reduce the period of suspension to that agreed upon in the pretrial agreement.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 81

To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial Equity and 
      Justice of the Department of State, 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 Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial Equity and 
      Justice of the Department of State, 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 ``Stop Imposing Woke Ideology Abroad 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
obligated or expended--
            (1) for the salary or expenses of the Special 
        Representative for Racial Equity and Justice of the Department 
        of State; or
            (2) to otherwise implement or carry out the Equity Action 
        Plan of the Department of State.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

December 18, 1957

No. 61417.

protests 231928-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40342 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus THOMAS JAMES ROACH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:93-CR-114-1

-------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Thomas James Roach, Federal prisoner number 04449-078, was convicted in 1994 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and is serving a 150-month term of imprisonment. Roach has appealed the district court’s order denying his motion under
F ED . R. C RIM . P. 35(b) for a downward departure. Resentencing under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 35(b) is permitted only on the Government’s motion. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3dNo. 02-40342 -2- 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Roach’s motion was unauthorized, the district court did not have jurisdiction. See id. at 142. Although the district court considered the motion on its merits, it should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See id. On that alternative basis, the district court’s order is
AFFIRMED.