alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT 10(a) 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the references to our firm under the captions “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statements of Additional
Information, and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 21, 2010, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Monumental Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated April 29, 2010, with respect to the
financial statements of the subaccounts of Separate Account VA CC, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-146323) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related Prospectuses of the
Advisor’s Edge Variable Annuity and Advisor’s Edge Select Variable Annuity. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 Des Moines, Iowa 
 April 29,
2010
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project Nos. 14178-000, 14190-000]

On February 22, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as follows:

1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII, Project No. 14178-000.

2. FFP Project 52, LLC, Project No. 14190-000.

Dated: February 22, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-4798 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00108-CV

In re Toni Van Gompel

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and the motion for temporary relief

is dismissed as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Filed: February 23, 2024
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1956

DR. MARLA FAITH CRAWFORD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DAVID PATRICK CORRIGAN; HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN , Defendants

- Appellees , and
SCHOOL BOARD FOR RICHMOND CITY , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 00923

- JAG )

Submitted : December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1956 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 42 Marla Crawford , Appellant Pro Se

. Julie Smith Palmer , HARMAN CLAYTOR C ORRIGAN & WELLMAN , Glen Allen, V irginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1956 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 43 PER CURIAM:
Dr. Marla Faith Crawford seeks to appeal t he district court ’s order dismissing her
civil complaint for failure to state a claim , and two subsequent orders granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for monetary sanctions and subjecting Crawford to a pre

- filing injunction in future cases. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. With respect to the district court’s order dismissing Crawford’s civil complaint for
failure to state a claim , w e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, pa rties have 30 days after the entry of the d istrict court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s order was entered on May 12, 2021

. The notice of appeal was
filed on August 27, 2021 . Because Crawford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as to this
order.
As to the district court’s orders granting the Rule 11 motion for sanctions , w e have
reviewed the record and find no reversible err or. Accordingl y, we affirm the district court ’s USCA4 Appeal: 21-1956 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 44 orders

. Crawford v. School Bd

. for Richmond City , No. 3:20

- cv - 00923

- JAG (E.D. Va. July 28, 2021) . We dispense with oral 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 IN PART , AFFIRMED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 21-1956 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41290

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL WAYNE CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-27

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Wayne Campbell appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

for mailing threatening communications to a United States judge, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). Campbell argues that the district

court violated the principles of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), by

making findings at sentencing based on a preponderance of the

evidence that increased his guideline range. The district court

was entitled to find by a preponderance of the evidence all facts

necessary to calculate the guideline range, and there was no Sixth
No. 05-41290

-2-

Amendment error. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2884 (2006); United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43

(2005).

Campbell also argues that the district court erroneously

calculated his criminal history points and criminal history

category because it failed to treat a prior conviction for escape

and a prior conviction for aggravated robbery as related. He

argues that the offenses occurred on the same day and that he was

sentenced to concurrent terms in the same proceeding. Campbell has

failed to show that these offenses were consolidated in state court

or that the offenses had a close factual relationship, and the

district court did not err. See United States v. Bryant, 991 F.2d

171, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Ainsworth, 932 F.2d

358, 361 (5th Cir. 1991); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). We

also note that Campbell’s criminal history category would have been

the same even if the offenses had been considered related because

the district court determined Campbell was a career offender. See

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b).

Finally, Campbell argues that the district court erroneously

denied him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

Approximately two weeks after pleading guilty to threatening a

United States District Court judge, Campbell sent another

threatening letter to the judge. The district court’s conclusion

that Campbell failed to show a withdrawal from criminal conduct was
No. 05-41290

-3-

not without foundation. See United States v. Franks, 46 F.3d 402,

406 (5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 10:52 AM

To: 'connect@dncinematics.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - D&N Cinematics LLC

Dear Messers. Diebel and Nordgaard:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

1505).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

•             Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1.  If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed set filming

from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/16/15.  If we do not receive

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 
patentablematerial, 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: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases Initial Review Group, Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and 
Skin Diseases Clinical Trials Review Committee.
    Date: March 26, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Charles H Washabaugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch,National Institute of Arthritis, 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Heath, 
6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 824, MSC 4872, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 
496-9568, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95e2f4e6fdf4f7f4f6d5f8f4fcf9bbfbfcfdbbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfa8beacb7bebdbebc9fb2beb6b3f1b1b6b7f1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 23, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4909 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Howard Larson Wampler, Jr., * From the 90th District

 Court of Stephens County,

 Trial Court No. F33837.

Vs. No. 11-13-00374-CR * September 30, 2015

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, 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 opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
FLIGHT LOG 

MISSION ID: 

_______________________________________________________________ 

DATE: _______________________________ TIME: _____________ AM PM 

LOCATION: 

___________________________________________________________________ 

OAT: ______________________________________ 

WINDS:_________________VISIBILITY: _______________________________ 

CEILING: _______________ 

DISTANCE FROM NEAREST AIRPORT:______________________________

AIRPORT NOTIFIED: ___________________________ 

PHONE# ______________________________________

CONTACT NAME: ______________________________ TIME: ______AM PM

NEAREST ROAD INTERSECTION: 

______________________________________________ 

PLANNED FLIGHT ALTITUDE, AGL: 

______________________________________________

COMMENTS: 
MARTIN LACHANCE

EMAIL: MRLBRISTOL@GMAIL.COM
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         MANGOSOFT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                          (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)

                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Year Ended December 31,
                                                                             -----------------------
                                                                              1999             1998
                                                                             ------           ------
<S>                                                                       <C>             <C>
BASIC NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:
     Net loss applicable to common shares as reported ....                $(34,906,568)   $(15,708,395)
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
          Common Stock ...................................                   6,414,178         136,367
                                                                          ------------    ------------

          Basic net loss per common share ................                $      (5.44)   $    (115.19)
                                                                          ============    ============

DILUTED NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:
     Net loss applicable to common shares as reported ....                $(34,906,568)   $(15,708,395)
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
          Common Stock ...................................                   6,414,178         136,367
          Effect of common stock equivalents .............                          --              --
                                                                          ------------    ------------
               Total .....................................                   6,414,178         136,367
                                                                          ------------    ------------
          Diluted net loss per common share ..............                $      (5.44)   $    (115.19)
                                                                          ============    ============
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         192,013
<SECURITIES>                                     5,680
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,457
<INVENTORY>                                        520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,135
<PP&E>                                         231,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 186,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           607
<OTHER-SE>                                     215,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   313,016
<SALES>                                        150,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,806
<CGS>                                           19,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               215,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   842
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,350
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,684
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,684
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CI-15864, styled Alfonso Lopez and Maria Elena Lopez v.

Caterpillar, Inc. and Holt Texas, Ltd. d/b/a Holt Cat, pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas,

the Honorable Gloria Saldana presiding. However, the ruling complained of was made by the Honorable Martha Tanner,

presiding judge of the166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00796-CV

IN RE CATERPILLAR INC. and HOLT TEXAS, LTD, d/b/a HOLT CAT

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 23, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 11, 2009, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the

trial court’s granting of the motion to strike the designation of a responsible third party. Mandamus

will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which relators have no adequate remedy at

law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker

v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The court has considered

relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief

sought because they have an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Scoggins Const. Co., No. 13-08-
04-09-00796-CV

-2-

00317-CV, 2008 WL 2721181 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 30, 2008, orig. proceeding [mand.

denied]) (mem. op.); In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 64-65 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM
Order entered February 6 , 2020

In t he 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01348
- CR DETRICK BLAIR DEAN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199
- 82171
- 2015



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 4, 2020 second motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant’s brief file d on or
before February 11, 2020 . If appellant’s brief is not filed by February 11, 2020, this appeal may be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 of Northern Explorations Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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.

Date: November 9, 2007


/s/ Richard Novis
-----------------------------------
Richard Novis, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)