alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF NET ASSETS; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES NET ASSETS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846581
<NAME> PRUDENTIAL VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACCOUNT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             111,115,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,324,915
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  492,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,832,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2277 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2277

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Allyl Pentaerythritol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Allyl Pentaerythritol.

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

SECTION 1. ALLYL PENTAERYTHRITOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Allyl Pentaerythritol) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective column period and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Zynex, Inc. (“Zynex”), that to his knowledge:

| | 1. | This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zynex for the period covered by this Report.         



This Certification is executed as of April 17, 2017.



|/s/ Thomas Sandgaard                                                                                                      | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Thomas Sandgaard                                                                                                          | 
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 14, 2005 /s/ ALAN D. GOLD   Alan D. Gold   Chief Executive Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 14, 2005 /s/ JOHN F. WILSON, II   John F. Wilson, II   Chief Financial Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph D. RIDEAUX Sr. v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-1971.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Rideaux, Joseph D. Sr.; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 23.01


                  Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-39145) pertaining to the Essex International Inc. Amended
and Restated Stock Option Plan and Essex International Inc. 1997 Stock Option
Plan for Nonemployee Directors of our report dated january 27, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Essex
International Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
March 5, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID JONES AND LINDA JONES,

 Appellants,

v.

TRANSPECOS BANK,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00217-CV

Appeal from

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC # 13-10-20505-CVR)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. Finding that the Appellants’ brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution.

Appellants’ brief was due to be filed on December 1, 2014. On December 8, 2014, the 

Clerk notified Appellants that their brief was past due and no motion for extension of time had 

been filed. The letter advised Appellants that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal for want 

of prosecution unless Appellants responded within ten days and showed grounds for continuing 

the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time in 

which to file the brief has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution.

March 19, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 4.2

 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated December 4, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2046 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-248806) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 4, 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ACELA ARECHIGA-PENA,

AKA Sara Leticia Perales,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71944

Agency No. A047-319-188

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Maria Acela Arechiga-Pena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

NOV 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 753

(9th Cir. 1986). We deny the petition for review.

Arechiga-Pena concedes that under controlling precedent lawful permanent

resident status granted by fraud or mistake is void ab initio. See Shin v. Holder,

607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although the facts of [prior cases] involve

acts of personal fraud or misrepresentation, their holdings broadly deem all grants

of LPR status that were not in substantive compliance with the immigration laws to

be void ab initio.”); Monet, 791 F.2d at 753 (“Admission is not lawful if it is

regular only in form. The term ‘lawfully’ denotes compliance with substantive

legal requirements, not mere procedural regularity[.]” (citation and quotation

marks omitted)). We decline Arechiga-Pena’s request to limit that precedent to

cases where permanent resident status was granted by fraud alone. See United

States v. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We are bound by

circuit precedent unless there has been a substantial change in relevant

circumstances, or a subsequent en banc or Supreme Court decision that is clearly

irreconcilable with our prior holding.” (internal citations omitted)).

Arechiga-Pena’s contentions regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1256 and rescission are

foreclosed by this court’s holding in Monet v. INS, where we noted that § 1256

pertains to rescission of permanent resident status, and “does not apply to bar

2 13-71944
deportation proceedings against an adjusted alien” and therefore we “exclude[d]

application of the five year limitations period to deportation proceedings regardless

of the method of the alien’s admission.” Monet, 791 F.2d at 754.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-71944
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA - 0481 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROBYN M. RYERSON, n/k/a ROBYN R. MADISON,

Petitioner/Appellee,

- vs PATRICK S. RYERSON,

Respondent/Appellant. **ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME** 

**IT IS**  **HEREBY ORDERED**  that Respondent/Appellant ha ve an additiona l 30 days to file his Opening Brief. Electronically dated and filed below.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court November 30 2021

11/30/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0481
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K
(the "Form 10-K") for the year ended December 31, 2003 of CRIIMI MAE Inc. (the "Issuer").

I,
Cynthia O. Azzara, Chief Financial Officer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



|March 12, 2004 |  | /s/CYNTHIA O. AZZARA                                                             
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  |                                                                                  
|DATE           |  | Cynthia O. Azzara
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, George Moore, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Barrington Sciences
Corporation, a Nevada corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May 1, 2007

/S/ George Moore
-------------------------------------
George Moore, President & CEO
#### Glenda Schubert D’SPAIN v. James L. D’SPAIN.

No. 87-CC-0693.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 9, 1987.

In re D’Spain, Glenda Schubert; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 302-816; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-C-222.

Granted. The trial court judgment is either a partial final judgment or an interlocutory judgment and therefore not ap-pealable at this time. The Court of Appeal orders are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for adjudication of the remaining issues. See La.C.C.P. Art. 1915.
#### STATE ex rel. Jason JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0019.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Jones, Jason; applying for writ of review; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 313-020.

Transfer to Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit for consideration and disposition.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William W. GODWIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82CA0946.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Sept. 29, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1983.

Certiorari Denied April 23, 1984.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Can-trick, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Maureen Phe-lan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

John J. Gibbons, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

Defendant, William Godwin, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the shooting death of his wife. At the time of sentencing Godwin introduced considerable evidence establishing his good character and requested a probationary sentence. After expressly considering all the circumstances and available evidence, the trial CQurt sentenced Godwin to a term of two and one-half years. On appeal Godwin argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a probationary sentence and seeks appellate review of that decision and a remand for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellate review of trial court judgments granting or denying probation is statutorily proscribed. Section 16-11-101, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), declares that: “The granting or denial of probation and the *1096conditions of probation shall not be subject to appellate review unless probation is granted contrary to the provisions of this title.” *See also*§ 18-1-409, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8); C.A.R. 4(c)(2)(IV). Hence, we may not review the denial of Godwin’s application for probation.

Appeal dismissed.

BERMAN and TURSI, JJ., concur.
#### Charlie Lee WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 30, 1986.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, *317Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Judge.

Defendant Charlie Lee Washington was convicted of two counts of grand theft and burglary. At the sentencing hearing, the assistant state attorney announced that he had calculated the defendant’s sentence to be twelve to thirty months’ incarceration based on the sentencing guidelines score-sheet. The trial court noted that this was in error, announced that it was going to “depart” and sentenced the defendant to prison for five years. Defendant’s appeal raises two points, each relating to his sentence. First, he argues that the scoresheet was not properly prepared and, second, that the trial judge improperly departed from the recommended guidelines sentence.

As to the defendant’s first point, the state concedes the scoresheet was improperly prepared. As to the defendant’s second point, the court gave five written reasons for departure, none of which are valid. The defendant’s previous record and the fact that he was on two probations are invalid reasons because they are already factored into the presumptive guidelines sentence. *Hendrix v. State,*475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). The fact that the defendant assaulted an officer while on probation is invalid because it is a factor relating to the instant offenses for which a conviction has not been obtained. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(ll). Finally, the protection of society and the fact that the defendant committed perjury are also invalid reasons. *See Williams v. State,*493 So.2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *Guerrero v. State,*484 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions but we vacate his sentence. We remand for the preparation of a new scoresheet and resentencing within the guidelines.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
**ADDENDUM
      TO LEASE**





**POWDERHORN
      PROPERTIES, LLC**





**COMMERCIAL
      LEASE AGREEMENT**




This
      Commercial Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and effective this **1** **st** day of **JUNE
      2008** ,
      by and
      between **POWDERHORN
      PROPERTIES, LLC.** ,
      an
      Idaho Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter “Owner”) and **ENERGENX,
      INC.** (hereinafter “Tenant”), upon the following terms and conditions:





1.  LEASED
      PREMISES.  The
      Owner
      hereby leases to the Tenant the real property and improvements located at **6200
      East Commerce Loop Post Falls, Idaho 83854** .
      The
      real property and improvements are collectively referred to as the
“Premises”.





2.  TERM
      OF LEASE :  The
      term
      of this Lease shall be for **12
      months** commencing on **JUNE
      1, 2008** and
      ending on **MAY
      31, 2009** .





3.  RENT :
      The
      monthly rental amount will be **$2,900.00** per
      month and the Tenant shall pay one lump sum of **$34,800.00** in
      advance and OWNER will waive the Security Deposit.





4.  All
      Terms
& Conditions of the original Lease dated **APRIL
      1, 2004** ,
      shall
      be in effect and binding.





Page
      2


Signature
      Page




IN
      WITNESS of our mutual understanding and consent, we have signed this Agreement
      on the dates indicated below.




OWNER:       TENANT:




/s/
              Donald L.
              Poteet
            
            
            /s/
              Gary
              BediniDonald L. Poteet, Managing Member
              **POWDERHORN PROPERTIES, LLC**
              EIN 82-0511561
            
            
            Gary Bedini, President & CEO
              **ENERGENX, INC.**
              EIN 82-0516297




6/3/08
              6/3/08Date
              Date