alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1





LUTHER BURBANK CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.








I, John G. Biggs, state and attest that:





|   |                                                                                    
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I am the Chief Executive Officer of Luther Burbank Corporation (the "Corporation").




|   |                                                                                                                                  
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




|  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




|  |                                                                                                                                                                                               
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented.







Date: March 16, 2018








By: /s/ John G. Biggs


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF
CAMBIUM LEARNING GROUP, INC. (Delaware)
December 31, 2009
 Voyager Learning Company
    
    DelawareVSS-Cambium Holdings II Corp.
    
    DelawareVSS-Cambium Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareVSS-Cambium Holdings IV, LLC
    
    DelawareCambium Learning, Inc.
    
    DelawareCambium Learning (New York), Inc.
    
    DelawareKurzweil Educational Systems, Inc.
    
    DelawareSopris West Educational Services, Inc.
    
    ColoradoIntellitools, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaVoyager Expanded Learning, Inc.
    
    DelawareLAZEL, Inc.
    
    Delaware
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

 

May 9, 2017 

Board of Trustees, Automotive Industries Pension Plan 

ATPA 

1640 South Loop Road 

Alameda, CA 94502 

Dear Mr. Schumacher, Ms. Hancock, and the Board of Trustees: 

On September 27, 2016, you submitted an application to the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary 

or Treasury) on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Automotive Industries Pension Fund 

(Fund). The application you submitted (Application) requests approval to reduce benefits under 

the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA).

Treasury has reviewed the Application under the terms of MPRA, its implementing regulations, 

and other applicable law. Treasury also has reviewed the comments received on the Application 

from organizations and individuals. 

I am writing to notify you of Treasury's decision to deny the Application because the 

proposed suspension fails to satisfy the statutory criteria for approval. 

Under the MPRA, Treasury, in consultation with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

(PBGC) and the Secretary of Labor (DOL), must approve an application upon finding that the 

plan is eligible for the benefit suspensions and has satisfied the applicable statutory 

requirements.1

 After reviewing the Application and consulting with PBGC and DOL, Treasury 

has determined that the suspension described in the Application fails to satisfy the requirement 

set forth in MPRA “that the proposed benefit suspensions, in the aggregate, be reasonably 

estimated to achieve, but not materially exceed, the level that is necessary to avoid insolvency.” 2

Specifically, Treasury has determined that the mortality rate assumption, the assumption 

regarding the rate at which married participants will elect a joint and survivor benefit, and the 

assumption regarding the probability of benefit commencement of terminated vested participants 

are not reasonable under the standards in the regulations. 

Treasury’s key findings are described below. 

 

1

 Code§ 432(e)(9)(G)(i). 

2

Code§ 432(e)(9)(D)(iv).
Page 32.0

Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #32

Does the application include the required plan identification information?

See section 7.02.

Yes. Required plan information:

Plan: Automotive Industries Pension Plan

EIN: 94-1133245

Plan No.: 001
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3773 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3773

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
 Services to evaluate the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 
                  Department, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 8 (legislative day, February 7), 2024

     Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Tillis, and Ms. Hassan) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
 Services to evaluate the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 
                  Department, 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 ``Strengthening Cybersecurity in 
Health Care Act''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF HHS CYBERSECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Inspector General of the 
Department of Health and Human Services shall evaluate the 
cybersecurity practices and protocols of the Department through the 
conduct of penetration tests and other testing procedures to determine 
how systems processing, transmitting, or storing mission critical or 
sensitive data by, for, or on behalf of the Department is currently, or 
could be compromised and--
            (1) expose patient data, including Medicare numbers of 
        individuals; or
            (2) impact patient safety.
    (b) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act, and every 2 years thereafter--
            (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit 
        to Congress a report that describes how the Secretary will 
        update the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 
        Department of Health and Human Services to adapt to the latest 
        cyberattack strategies; and
            (2) the Inspector General of the Department of Health and 
        Human Services shall submit to Congress a report that 
        describes--
                    (A) how the Inspector General is currently using 
                Federal funds of the Inspector General to carry out 
                subsection (a); and
                    (B) additional funding or legislative changes 
                required for the Inspector General to maintain the 
                evaluation described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.1


 


Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU)


 


This
Memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) is intended to set forth our agreement with respect to an arrangement pursuant
to which Medical Innovation Holdings Inc. (“MIHI”) and Advanced Medical pricing Solutions (“AMPS”) will
agree to work together in several initiatives, both organizations are pursuing to enhance their revenue streams, provide extended
client services, and become more competitive in a crowded and growing healthcare marketplace.


 


Role
and Responsibilities


 


Medical Innovation
Holdings Inc. is a public company under the symbol MIHI. Our core business is to deliver state of the art telemedicine services
to patients via our comprehensive integrated patient care platform. We are also pursuing other markets that include developing
a health care sharing organization (HCSO) targeting the 58 million Hispanics in the USA.


 


Advanced Medical Pricing
Solutions (AMPS) provides market leading healthcare cost containment solutions for various entities that serve and utilize the
health care ecosystem. Their mission is to provide services designed and developed to help bring their clients attain their goals
of materially reducing healthcare costs while keeping their members satisfied with quality healthcare benefits and optimized financial
outcomes.


 


It
is contemplated that the two companies will work together in their core areas to jointly bring solutions to the market that greatly
expand the use of telemedicine as an outreach/ access tool and as a cost containment tool. MIHI’s HCSO will also seek to
utilize AMPS’ national healthcare cost containment network via its healthcare navigators to service the coverage requirements
of MIHI members enrolled in the HCSO. This combination allows both firms to accelerate the time to market while providing a much
needed service.


 


Both
firms understand that working together can act as a catalyst that changes the healthcare landscapes for MIHI and AMPS clients.
Utilizing AMPS back and front end services will provide MIHI with a competitive advantage when it comes to price and access. AMPS
have a series of additional services that MIHI will roll out as the market dictates and as the membership base grows.


 


/s/
Michael Dendy


 


(AMPS
Chief Executive Officer)


 


/s/
Arturo Jake Sanchez


 


(MIHI
Chief Executive Officer)
SWORCCPP-000340
SWORCCPP-000341
SWORCCPP-000342
SWORCCPP-000343
SWORCCPP-000344

SWORCCPP-000346
 

SWORCCPP-000347
 

SWORCCPP-000348
 

SWORCCPP-000349
SWORCCPP-000350
SWORCCPP-000351
SWORCCPP-000352
SWORCCPP-000353
 

SWORCCPP-000354
 

SWORCCPP-000355
 

SWORCCPP-000356
 

SWORCCPP-000357
SWORCCPP-000358
 

SWORCCPP-000359
 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000360
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000361
 

SWORCCPP-000362
SWORCCPP-000363
SWORCCPP-000364
SWORCCPP-000365
SWORCCPP-000366
SWORCCPP-000367
 

SWORCCPP-000368
SWORCCPP-000369
 

 

SWORCCPP-000370
SWORCCPP-000371
SWORCCPP-000372
 

SWORCCPP-000373
 

SWORCCPP-000374
SWORCCPP-000375
SWORCCPP-000376
SWORCCPP-000377
 

SWORCCPP-000378
 

SWORCCPP-000379

 

SWORCCPP-000381
SWORCCPP-000382
 

 

SWORCCPP-000383
 

SWORCCPP-000384
SWORCCPP-000385
 

 

 

 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000386
SWORCCPP-000387
SWORCCPP-000388
SWORCCPP-000389
 

SWORCCPP-000390
 

SWORCCPP-000391
SWORCCPP-000392
SWORCCPP-000393
 

SWORCCPP-000394
 

SWORCCPP-000395
 

 

SWORCCPP-000396
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000397
SWORCCPP-000398
SWORCCPP-000399
 

SWORCCPP-000400
SWORCCPP-000401
 

SWORCCPP-000402
 

SWORCCPP-000403
 

 

SWORCCPP-000404
 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000405
 

SWORCCPP-000406
SWORCCPP-000407
SWORCCPP-000408
 

SWORCCPP-000409
SWORCCPP-000410
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NALAN SEKER SHAW

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00 122

- C R

Appeal from the

175th Judicial District Court

o f Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2022CR6815 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Nalan Seker Shaw pleaded true to one count of fraudulent use or possession of

identifying information and was placed on deferred

- adjudication community supervision for a

period of eight years. 1 The trial court certified Appellant’s right to appeal. After Appellant filed a

notice of appeal, Appellant ’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) and a brief in support of the motion

. Subsequently, a ppellate

counsel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42. 2 , indicati ng “Appellant

is asking this Court to dismiss this appeal

. ”

1 This case was transferred from our sister court in San Antonio , and we decide it in accordance with the precedent of

that c ourt to the extent required by T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3

.2 Rule 4 2 .2(a) provides : “ At any time before the appellate court ’ s decision, the appellate

court may dismiss the appeal upon the appellant ’ s motion. The appellant and his or her attorney

must sign the written motion to dismiss and file it in duplicate with the appellate clerk, who must

immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.2(a) . We have not

yet issued a decision in this case

, and Appellant’s motion to dismiss t he appeal is signed by both

Appellant and appellate counsel. Because Appellant has complied with the Rule 42.2(a)

requirements

, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. We further grant Appellan t ’ s

counsel ’ s motion to wi thdraw.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

July 7, 2023

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto

, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1226 KA 14-00255**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DYLAN FOX, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (GREGORY A. KILBURN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered December 23, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and driving while ability impaired by drugs, as a misdemeanor.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by defendant on September 9, 2015 and by the attorneys for the parties on September 9 and 21, 2015,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed upon stipulation.

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please see the attached Letter.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4603-000]


Boston Edison Company; Notice of Filing

November 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 24, 1997, Boston Edison Company 
tendered for filing additional information to its September 15, 1997, 
filing in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before November 28, 1997. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30642 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
257 La. 264

#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS v. Fred E. BATES.

No. 51047.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: Fred E. Bates applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Application granted, limited to consideration of assignments one and three. In other respects the application is denied.

SUMMERS, Justice,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted without limit.

The petition of the relator m the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Field V. Gremillion, Judge of the Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 29th day of March, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through their attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

Application granted, limited to consideration of assignments one and three. In other respects the application is denied.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Quarterly Report of China Teletech Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-K/A for the yearending December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Teletech Limited.
   Date: September 22, 2010
By:
/s/ Dong LiuDong LiuPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### James D. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-112.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 17, 1969.

James D. Brown, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record having been read and given full consideration and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.B 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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2005, of
El Paso CGP Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, D. Mark Leland, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/
D. Mark LelandD. Mark LelandExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
November 10, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### POLK FRUIT BUYERS, INC., Appellant, v. HARDEE CITRUS PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee.

No. 69-657.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Sari POSNER, Appellant, v. Victor POSNER, Appellee.

No. 67-107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 24, 1970.

Broad & Cassel and Lewis Horwitz, Sib-ley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson and Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on January 23, 1968 (206 So.2d 416) affirming in part and reversing in part the final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed March 25, 1970 (233 So.2d 381) and mandate dated April 10, 1970, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with instructions for further proceedings.

Now therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on February 20, 1968 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed in this cause on January 23, 1968 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and those portions of the final *379decree of the trial court relating to alimony and support money are vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).