alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated September 14, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2088 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-257063) 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


September 14, 2021
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2655 

AN ACT 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 2655 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduc3 tion Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY. 

5 (a) SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11.—Rule 11(c) of the 

6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘may’’ and in8 serting ‘‘shall’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Rule 5’’ and 

10 all that follows through ‘‘motion.’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘Rule 5.’’; and 

12 (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘situated’’ 

13 and all that follows through the end of the para14 graph and inserting ‘‘situated, and to compensate 

15 the parties that were injured by such conduct. Sub16 ject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the sanction 

17 shall consist of an order to pay to the party or par18 ties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred 

19 as a direct result of the violation, including reason20 able attorneys’ fees and costs. The court may also 

21 impose additional appropriate sanctions, such as 

22 striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other 

23 directives of a nonmonetary nature, or, if warranted 

24 for effective deterrence, an order directing payment 

25 of a penalty into the court.’’. 
3 

•HR 2655 EH

1 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

2 or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to 

3 bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, 

4 defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, 

5 including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of 

6 the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2655 

AN ACT 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

and for other purposes. Procedure to improve attorney accountability,
#### GRANADO v. STATE.

No. 24680.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1950.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1950.

J. Hubert Lee, Austin, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol and fined the sum of $100.00, and he appeals.

There is no statement of facts filed herein.

From the bill of exception found in the record, we gather that appellant was seen driving an automobile at nighttime with only one headlight, and that one was flickering on and off. He was approached by two highway patrolmen, who talked to him relative to such lights. One of the patrolmen looked in appellant’s car and there found a pistol on the floor. He then arrested appellant and filed against him for carrying such pistol.

There is but one bill of exception, part I of which relates to the search of appellant’s car, and such bill is then interlined with “II” and proceeds to complain about a certain argument of the County Attorney. This bill contains two separate and distinct transactions, all under one bill, and is multifarious. Therefore, we cannot consider the same, it being in contravention *531of our ruling in numerous cases. See Shelton v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 368, 200 S.W.2d 1004; White v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 546, 203 S.W.2d 222; Sharp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 210 S.W.2d 174; Humphrey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 212 S.W.2d 159. See also 4 Tex.Jur. p. 253, sec. 178.

Appellant, in his brief, makes many references to, and quotations from, the testimony of the arresting officers, and cites us to certain contradictions thereof. Unfortunately, there is no statement of facts present in the record and we cannot take the statements made in a brief as furnishing us with a knowledge of the facts proven, nor can we go to the multifarious bill of exception therefor.

We find nothing for further review, and the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

WOODLEY, Judge.

We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that his multifarious bill of exception should be considered as presented.

Nor can we agree that appellant may now amend such bill of exception by waiver of a part thereof and thereby present a bill of exception relating to a single transaction, and have same considered by this court.

It may be observed that the trial court in his charge instructed the jury in effect that unless appellant was under arrest when his car was searched, the evidence obtained by such search was inadmissible, and appellant should be acquitted. Appellant did not except to such charge.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we must assume that the evidence raised such issue, and that the jury found that appellant was under arrest at the time the pistol was discovered.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.
This opinion is subject to admini strative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD, STEWART, and HACKEL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Benjamin D. DUDA Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 202100184

_________________________
Decided: 18 January 202 2
Appeal from the United States Na vy
- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judges : K eaton H. Harrell (arraignment) Nicholas S. Henry ( trial)
Sentence adjudged 14 May 2021 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune , North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 36 months , forfeiture of all pay and allowances
, and a dishonorable discharge.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner , JAGC, USNUnited States v. Duda , NMCCA No. 202100184 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

VENTURA COUNTY APCD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 1 

0 I. GENERAL INFORMATION  District: Ventura County APCD Rule Nos.: 54 and 42 Date Adopted: January 14, 201

 Rule Titles: Sulfur Compounds (54), Permit Fees (42)  Date Submitted to ARB: February 10, 2014 If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended: Rule 54 on Jun

April 9, 2013 

 Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? (X) Yes ( ) No If NO, do not complete rem

 District Contact: Tyler Harris Phone No.: 805/645-1407 

 Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: ( ) New Rule (X) Amended: Amended Rule 54 will a

NAAQS to the ground or sea level concentration limits, clarify the sulfur dioxide emission limit for combustiemission fee calculation for exempt flaring, correct typographical errors and update references. Amended Ruemission fee calculation for exempt flaring to maintain consistency with Rule 54. Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Circle): ROG NOx SO2 PM10 CO TAC 

 II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS 

 Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emission. Attach reference(s) for e

 information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emissions information provided below was determined. See staff report Append

Net Effect on Emissions: ( ) Increase ( ) Decrease ( X ) N/A No impact on emissions. 

 II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS  Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP (Control Measure ) for this source category: 

 Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in 

 Future Y

Year 

Tons/year Reductions 

 2012 Baseline 

Tons/year 

Subject to Rule 

Control 

Level 

Percent 

Control 

Contr

Leve
AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

VENTURA COUNTY APCD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 2 

 III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS  District is: ( X ) Attainment ( ) Nonattainment ( ) Split  Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule: 185  Percent in Nonattainment Area: 0 %  Number of Large (>100 TPY) Sources Controlled: None Percent in Nonattainment Area: Not Applicable 

 IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY  Do the Rules Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes. 

 V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS 

RULE 54 (Sulfur Compounds) Amended Requirements include: 

 Emission Limits (SO2 Emission Limits): Section B.1  Ground or Sea Level SO2 Concentration Limits: Section B.2  Test Methods: Section D  Exemptions: Section C.2.f. 

 VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN  (X) No Impact ( ) Impacts RFP ( ) Impacts attainment 

Discussion: Amendments to Rule 54 will update emission limits and ambient concentration limits for s

maintenance of attainment status for the sulfur dioxide and particulate matter NAAQS wilamendments to both rules.
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 ESP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
Dugas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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: May
20, 2008





/s/ 
David Dugas


David
Dugas


Chief
Executive Officer


Principal
Financial Officer,


Principal
Accounting Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Gertrude HAMMERS et al., Appellants, v. Edward L. ANDRIOT et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Everett H. Metcalf, Jr., Wallace & Hop-son, Henry D. Hopson, Louisville, for appellants.

Eugene B. Cochran, Louisville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court, Chancery Branch, First Division, Macauley L. Smith, Judge.

We are affirming the judgment for $1,-473.67 because we find no error prejudicial to the appellants’ substantial rights.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Carl E. G. Arnold 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

William H. Mitchell 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION





I, Michael P. Kraft, Chief Executive Officer of Lingo Media Inc., certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Lingo Media Inc.



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.



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



I and the other certifying officers are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures for the Company.



I and the other certifying officers have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly during the period in which the periodic report is being prepared.



I and the other certifying officers have evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report; and



I and the other certifying officers have presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required evaluation as of that date.



I and the other certifying officers have disclosed to the Companys auditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):



(i)

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



(ii)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls; and



I and the other certifying officers have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated:  July 30, 2003







BY: /s/ MICHAEL P. KRAFT

Michael P. Kraft

President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C.
Spindler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my 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.


/s/ Robert C. Spindler
-------------------------------------
Robert C. Spindler
Chief Financial Officer
January 10, 2008
Exhibit 32.1



BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



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 Boston Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Marc E.
Lanser, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MARC E. LANSERMarc E. Lanser Director, President and Chief Operating Officer




Date: May 14, 2004
ALD-173 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1032

___________

CONSPIRATORS

v.

DR. CHANDAN S. VORA,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-00275)

District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 28, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 18, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Dr. Chandan S. Vora appeals from the orders of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying her motion to file a motion for rehearing of the court’s prior order dismissing her petition for removal.
2

Dr. Vora filed a petition for removal, which the District Court dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction and as otherwise frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This Court 

dismissed Dr. Vora’s appeal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Conspirators v. Vora, C.A. No. 09-

4608 (3d Cir. Mar. 4, 2010). On November 22, 2010, Dr. Vora filed a motion for an 

extension of time to file a motion for re-hearing of the District Court’s dismissal of her 

removal petition, which the District Court denied as moot in light of our judgment 

dismissing Dr. Vora’s related appeal, and pursuant to a pre-filing injunction issued in 

2008. See In re Chandan S. Vora, Misc. No. 08-mc-00104 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2008)

(prohibiting Dr. Vora from filing “any motions and pleadings and other documents in 

cases that have been dismissed and closed by the district court and that subsequently have 

been appealed” to this Court). Dr. Vora filed this timely appeal.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon de 

novo review of the record and careful consideration of Dr. Vora’s notice of appeal and 

other submissions, we conclude that there is no substantial question presented on appeal 

and that summary action is warranted. See LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We need not 

decide whether the pre-filing injunction comports with Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 

329, 333 (3d Cir. 1990). Assuming without deciding that the pre-filing injunction does 

not apply here, the District Court properly denied Dr. Vora’s motion for an extension of 

time as moot based on our dismissal of her appeal of the same court order upon which 

she ultimately sought a rehearing.

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court judgment.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JACOB CHRISTINE,

Petitioner

v.

JUDGE EMIL GIORDANO AND

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of February

, 2018, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
##### 



Exhibit 4.1




---



##### 



The Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a
statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other
special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series thereof and the qualifications,
limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the
Corporations Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as Ihough they were written out in full according to applicable
laws or regulations: Signature(s) Guaranteed: By:___ THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION
(BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WiTH MEM
BERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEOALUON PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO
S.E.C. RULE17Ad-15. This certificate also evidences and entitles the holder to Rights set forth in a Rights
Agreeriient between the issuer and Continental Stock Transfer S Trust Company, as Rights Agent {the
Rights Agent), dated as of September 11, 2001 (the Rights Agreement), the terms of which are
incorporated herein by reference and a copy of which is on file at the principal offices of both
the issuer and the Rights Agent. The Company will mail to the registered holder of this certificate
a copy of the Rights Agreement, as in effect on the date of mailing, without charge upon written
request. Under certain circumstances set forth in the Rights Agreement, such Rights will be
evidenced by separate certificates and will no longer be evidenced by this certificate. Under
certain circumstances set forth in the Rights Agreement, Rights issued to, or held by any Person
who is, was or becomes, or acquires shares from, an Acquiring Person or any Affiliate of an
Acquiring Person (as each such term is defined in the Rights Agreement and generally relating to
the ownership or purchase of large shareholdings), whether currently held by or on behalf of such
Person or Affiliate or by certain subsequent holders, may become null and void.
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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                Registrant |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                                                        |                             |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                                                        |
|                            |                                                                                   |                        |
| Dated:              January 30, 2007 |                                                                                   | /s/ Eric              Brown |
|                                 | Eric                BrownChief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                 |                                                                                        |