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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 142

Designating the month of August as ‘‘National Lighthouse Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 9, 1993

Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. RAVENEL, Mr. LAZIO, and Mr. HYDE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the month of August as ‘‘National Lighthouse

Month’’.

Whereas lighthouses serve as symbols of the nautical heritage

of this Nation;

Whereas President Washington signed the Lighthouse Act in

1789 which established a Federal role in the support,

maintenance, and repair of all lighthouses, beacon buoys,

and public piers necessary for safe navigation, commissioned the first Federal lighthouse, and represents the

first public works Act in the young country;

Whereas the lighthouse played an integral role in the rich

maritime history of the United States as that history
2

•HJ 142 IH

spread from the Atlantic coast, through the Great Lakes

and the Gulf coast, to the Pacific States;

Whereas these impressive structures, standing at lands end

through more than 2 centuries have symbolized safety,

security, heroism, duty, and faithfulness;

Whereas architects, designers, engineers, builders, and keepers devoted, and in some cases, jeopardized, their lives

for the safety of others;

Whereas the United States Coast Guard has completed the

automation of all Coast Guard lights, concluding a rich,

colorful, and significant chapter in American history;

Whereas this heritage is further threatened by neglect, vandalism, and deterioration by the elements; and

Whereas the many completed, ongoing, or planned private

and public efforts to preserve lighthouses demonstrate

the public support for these historic structures: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the month of August is designated as ‘‘National

4 Lighthouse Month’’; that to the extent feasible, lighthouse

5 grounds should be open to the general public; and the

6 President is authorized and requested to issue a proclama7 tion calling upon the people of the United States to ob8 serve such a day with appropriate ceremonies and activi9 ties.

Æ
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 6
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 8
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 9
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 10
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 11
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 12
Case 3:22-cv-01189-M Document 1-1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 13
#### Jack J. Elkin, Plaintiff, *v.*Austral American Trading Corp., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 12, 1957.

*Javits & Javits*for defendant.

*Samuel J. Green*for plaintiff.

Arthur Markewich, J.

The motion to vacate the service of the summons or to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied. The contract, in paragraph 5, states: “Both parties agree that service or process may be. made by registered special delivery air mail addressed to the other party at his or its last known address and that the time to respond to such process shall be 40 days from the date of mailing thereof.” This provision of the contract was complied with and therefore the service is proper. The contract further reads: ‘' This contract is to be construed pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and both parties agree that only the New York Courts shall have jurisdiction over this contract and any controversies arising out of this contract.” As stated in *Holzer*v. *Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft*(277 N. Y. 474, 478): “The courts of this State are empowered to entertain jurisdiction of actions between citizens of foreign countries or other States of this Union based upon contracts between non-residents to be performed outside this State.”

Not only did both parties confer jurisdiction upon this court, but should the court decline jurisdiction it might foreclose the plaintiff from any other remedy. The above-cited paragraph makes New York courts the only forums wherein the plaintiff can get any relief. Lastly, the plaintiff is the assignee of the nonresident assignor. He has the right to maintain the present action *(McCauley*v. *Georgia R. R. Bank,*239 N. Y. 514).
# Official Journal C 28/31 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 28 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5131 January 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 28

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5131 January 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 028/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 028/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CAREADVANTAGE,
      INC**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certifies
      that (i) the Quarterly Report of CareAdvantage, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  November
        14, 2007
 /s/ Dennis J. MourasDennis
                  J. Mouras,
                Chief
                    Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer****
 17
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated August 27, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-205628) of Smart Trust, Portfolio
of Closed-End Fund Opportunities Trust, Series 8.


 


	 	/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


August 27, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7545

IGOR KOOB,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate

Judge. (2:11-cv-00195-DEM)

Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 28, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Igor Koob, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant 

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Igor Koob seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.∗

 The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Koob has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

 ∗ The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 636(c) (2006).
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 7 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 7

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income 
 tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second 
                 home should not be further restricted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

   Mrs. Roukema (for herself and Mr. Lehman) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income 
 tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second 
                 home should not be further restricted.

Whereas homeownership is a fundamental American ideal, which promotes social and 
        economic benefits beyond the benefits that accrue to the occupant of the 
        home;
Whereas homeownership is an important factor in promoting economic security and 
        stability for American families;
Whereas it is proper that the policy of the Federal Government is and should 
        continue to be to encourage homeownership;
Whereas the increase in the cost of housing over the last 10 years has been 
        greater than the increase in family income;
Whereas, for the first time in 50 years, the percentage of people in the United 
        States owning their own homes has declined;
Whereas the percentage of people in the United States between the ages of 25 and 
        29 who own their own home has declined from 43 percent in 1976 to 38 
        percent in 1991;
Whereas the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt 
        secured by a first home has been a valuable cornerstone of this Nation's 
        housing policy for most of this century and may well be the most 
        important component of housing-related tax policy in America today;
Whereas the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt 
        secured by second homes is of crucial importance to the economies of 
        many communities;
Whereas the continued deductibility of interest paid on debt secured by a first 
        or second home has particular importance in promoting other desirable 
        social goals, such as education of young people; and
Whereas the Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a 
        first or second home has been limited twice in the last 6 years, and was 
        further eroded as a result of the 1990 Budget Act: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income 
tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second 
home should not be further restricted.

                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RANDY HEIMLER

, Appellant,

v.

LEONARD KRENEK and DELAYNE KRENEK

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 16

- 2184

[ October 19, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County ; Cynthia L. Cox , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312010CA010969

.

Neil B. Solomon of McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, West Palm Beach, for

appellant.

Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr., and George P. Roberts, Jr., of Roberts

Reynolds Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., M AY and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Official Journal L 204I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 204I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 654 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 204I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 654 August 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1354 of 4 August 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1355 of 4 August 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 4 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1354 of 4 August 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1355 of 4 August 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

4

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 10.11


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to
Promissory Note dated January 23, 2015 issued by Penny Auction Solutions, Inc. to Indeglia & Carney, a professional corporation
(now known as IC Capital Fund) in the principal amount of $54,123.64 (the “First Amendment”) is made and entered
into as of August 13, 2015, by and among Penny Auction Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and
IC Capital Fund (f/k/a Indeglia & Carney, P.C.) (“Holder”). The Company and Holder are sometimes collectively
referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party”.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, on January
23, 2015, the Company issued Holder a 10% Note in the amount of $54,123.64 (as amended, the “Note”). The Note
is incorporated into this First Amendment by this reference and all defined terms in the Agreement shall have the same meaning
in this First Amendment.


 


WHEREAS, the Maturity
Date under the Note was July 23, 2015.


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
desire to extend the Maturity Date under the Note until January 23, 2016.


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
now wish to modify and amend the Note in accordance with this First Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.          Incorporation
of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are herein incorporated into this First Amendment.


 


2.          Extension of Maturity
Date. The Parties hereby agree that the Maturity Date set forth in the Note is hereby extended until January 23, 2016.
Accordingly, the Note is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “July 23, 2015” immediately before the defined
term “Maturity Date” in the paragraph beginning “FOR VALUE RECEIVED” on the first page of the Note and
inserting “January 23, 2016” in lieu thereof.


 


3.          Counterparts.
This First Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 






    	1



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, intending, to be legally bound, have each executed this First Amendment on the dates set
forth above.


 


	COMPANY:	PENNY AUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	
	 	Name: Michael Holt 
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer 
	 	 	 
	HOLDER:	IC CAPTIAL FUND f/k/a Indeglia & Carney, P.C.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name: Greg Carney
	 	Title: Secretary


 






    	2
Exhibit 35.12



|     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  |  |  | CMBS Department MAC N9401-011
1055 10th Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55414

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street 14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2015-CCRE23 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-CCRE23
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., as Custodian (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):



| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officers supervision; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                
|----------------
|March 17, 2016  
|                
|/s/ Gail Vannest
|GAIL VANNEST    
|Vice President  



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
<page>    EXHIBIT 32.01





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 Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		November 14, 2003
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2014 - 0579 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2014 - SW - 020 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**