alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.4


               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Gary B. Horton, Assistant Treasurer of U-Haul International, Inc.,
certify that:

1.   the Annual Report of U-Haul International, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year
     ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
     on the date hereof (the "Report"), which this statement accompanies, 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 U-Haul
     International, Inc.


                               /s/ GARY B. HORTON
                               -----------------------------------------
                               Gary B. Horton
                               Assistant Treasurer

                               January 9, 2003
NUMBER 13-12-00222-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE RICARDO A. RODRIGUEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Ricardo A. Rodriguez, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above 

cause on April 5, 2012. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to set aside an 

order issued by the trial court on October 20, 2011 denying relator’s motion to strike and 

granting CS Auto Ltd.’s motion for sanctions. Relator further seeks to set aside the trial 

court’s oral ruling of March 29, 2012 denying relator’s motion for reconsideration.

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. All other relief 

sought in this original proceeding is likewise DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

10th day of April, 2012.
#### THE STATE v. MARTHA JENKINS.

Although a bastard be bom in one County, yet if the mother and child after] wards remove to another Couuty, and there acquire a residence before proceedings in bastardy are had against her, those proceedings must be in the latter County, which is alone responsible for the maintenance of the bastard.

The cas.e of the *Statk*v *Roberts,*10 Ire. 350, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Richmond County, at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Manet presiding.

This was a proceeding under the “ Bastardy Act,” instituted in the County Court of Richmond County. It appeared, that the child was born in Richmond County, that the mother and child removed to Montgomery County and there resided more than two years before this proceeding was com* menced. The defendant, therefore, moved to dismiss the prosecution for the want of jurisdiction in the County Court of Richmond, but the Court refused the motion and gave judgment against the defendant, who appealed therefrom. *122The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the'County Court, and the defendant appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General*for the State.

*J. W. Cameron*and *Banks*for the defendant.

Pearson J.

The mother and her child had acquired a ' settlement1 in the. County of Montgomery,-at the time’this ¡.proceeding was- commeneed. The County of Richmond Was not chargeable, and therefore had no right to require an indemnity. There is error. The point is settled by *State v. Roberts,*10 Ire. 350.

Per Curiam. Ordered that this opinion be certified to the Court below. \
consent.htm
















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141758) pertaining to Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 11, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 7, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H.







                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


October 27, 2010
<PAGE>   1



                                                                  Exhibit 10(aa)


                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ALLEN GROUP INC.
                     MASTER DISCRETIONARY SEVERANCE PAY PLAN


     ALLEN TELECOM INC., formerly known as The Allen Group Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby adopts this First Amendment to The Allen Group Inc. Master Discretionary
Severance Pay Plan (the "Plan"), effective as of the close of business on
February 28, 1997.

                                       I.

     As a result of the Company's name change from The Allen Group Inc. to Allen
Telecom Inc., the Plan is hereby amended to change the name of the Company
wherever it is set forth herein, including in the name of the Plan, if
applicable; provided, however, that such name change shall not affect the
substantive meaning of any provision of the Plan.

     EXECUTED on this 28th day of February, 1997.


                                       ALLEN TELECOM INC.


                                       By:  /s/ McDara P. Folan, III
                                            -------------------------------
                                            McDara P. Folan, III
                                            Vice President, Secretary
                                            and General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 138 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 138

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 extending the right to vote to citizens sixteen years of age or older.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 3, 2018

 Ms. Meng submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 extending the right to vote to citizens sixteen years of age or older.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The twenty-sixth article of amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    ``Section 2. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 
sixteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged 
by the United States or by any State on account of age.
    ``Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 189/3 Au

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 189 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 483 August 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 189

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 483 August 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2005/C 189/1 | Council opinion of 12 April 2005 on the updated stability programme of Greece, 2004-2007 | 1 |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 189/2 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 2,05 % on 1 August 2005 — Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| 2005/C 189/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3908 — ABN AMRO/IMCD) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 5 |
| 2005/C 189/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3912 — Bidvest/Deli XL) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |
| 2005/C 189/5 | Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers — Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 | 7 |
| 2005/C 189/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3721 — Stora Enso/Scaldia/PDF) (1) | 9 |
| 2005/C 189/7 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3805 — Crompton/Great Lakes) (1) | 9 |
| 2005/C 189/8 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3778 — Böhler-Uddeholm/Buderus) (1) | 10 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2005/C 189/1

Council opinion of 12 April 2005 on the updated stability programme of Greece, 2004-2007

1

Commission

2005/C 189/2

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 2,05 % on 1 August 2005 — Euro exchange rates

4

2005/C 189/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3908 — ABN AMRO/IMCD) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

5

2005/C 189/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3912 — Bidvest/Deli XL) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

2005/C 189/5

Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers — Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

7

2005/C 189/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3721 — Stora Enso/Scaldia/PDF) (1)

9

2005/C 189/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3805 — Crompton/Great Lakes) (1)

9

2005/C 189/8

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3778 — Böhler-Uddeholm/Buderus) (1)

10

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2005/C 189/9 | Corrigendum to the euro exchange rates — 15 July 2005(OJ C 176, 16.7.2005) | 11 |

Corrigenda

2005/C 189/9

Corrigendum to the euro exchange rates — 15 July 2005(OJ C 176, 16.7.2005)

(OJ C 176, 16.7.2005)

11

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
J. 

that he would appeal appellant's sentence. Appellant did not provide any 

facts indicating that he believed an appeal had been filed or that he filed 

his petition within a reasonable time of learning that counsel had not filed 

an appeal. See id. at 254-55, 71 P.3d at 507-08. Thus, we conclude that 

the district court did not err in rejecting this good cause argument. 

Appellant also claimed that the law library was not equipped 

to assist someone who lacked legal knowledge, that he was mentally ill 

and had been taken advantage of by other inmates, and that he had been 

placed in protected segregation. Appellant's lack of legal knowledge does 

not constitute good cause. Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 

656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988). As to his assertions that he was 

mentally ill and placed in segregation, he failed to specify any facts as to 

how this impeded him from filing a timely post-conviction petition. See 

Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 254-55, 71 P.3d at 507-08. Therefore, the district 

court did not err in denying his petition as procedurally barred. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

Saitta 

2We deny appellant's motion for a stay and abeyance. We have 

reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to 

the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based 

upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has 

attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not 

previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to 

consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Raffick Sahibjohn 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
attestationh1264.htm


Back to Form 8-K


Exhibit 10.9


 




Medicare Advantage Attestation of Benefit Plan


 





WELLCARE OF TEXAS, INC.


 





H1264







 


I attest that I have examined the Plan Benefit Packages (PBPs) identified below and that the benefits identified in the PBPs are those that the above-stated organization will make available to eligible beneficiaries in the approved service area during program year 2011. I further attest that we have reviewed the bid pricing tools (BPTs) with the certifying actuary and have determined them to be consistent with the PBPs being attested to here.







 


I further attest that these benefits will be offered in accordance with all applicable Medicare program authorizing statutes and regulations and program guidance that CMS has issued to date and will issue during the remainder of 2010 and 2011, including but not limited to, the 2011 Call Letter, the 2011 Solicitations for New Contract Applicants, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, the Medicare Managed Care Manual, and the CMS memoranda issued through the Health Plan Management System (HPMS).












	
 Plan


ID

	
Segment


ID

	
Version

	
Plan Name

	
Plan


Type

	
Transaction


Type

	
MA


Premium

	
Part D


Premium

	
CMS Approval Date

	
Effective


Date


	
004

	
0

	
5

	
WellCare Value (HMO -POS)

	
HMOPOS

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/03/2010

	
1/1/2011


	
007

	
0

	
5

	
WellCare Access (HMO SNP)

	
HMO

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
28.20

	
09/03/2010

	
1/1/2011


	
008

	
0

	
6

	
WellCare Dividend     (HMO)

	
HMO

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/03/2010

	
01/01/2011


	
014

	
0

	
6

	
WellCare Dividend (HMO)

	
HMO

	
Renewal

	
0.00

	
0.00

	
09/03/2010

	
1/1/2011







 


H1264










  





  











  








 








	
Thomas Tran

	  	
9/2/2010 7:56:42 AM


	  	  	 	  
	  	  	  
	
Contracting Official Name

	
Date


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
WELLCARE OF TEXAS, INC.

	
8735 Henderson Rd


	  	  	
Ren 1


	  	  	Tampa, FL 33634	  
	  	  	 	  
	
Organization

	
Address


	  	  	  







H1264
#### STATE v. AUSTIN WILSON.

*Indictment — Larceny — Evidence.*

Whore on a trial for larceny, it was in evidence that the prosecutor had money, that the defendant knew he had it, that they were drinking together and were on the road together at night, that the prosecutor was •drunk and unconscious and the defendant had an opportunity of handling his person, and that the defendant had no money on that night but had some the following day ; *Held,*that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury m returning a verdict of guilty

INDICTMENT for Larceny, tried at Pall Term, 1876, of ALEXANDER Superior Court, before Buxton, *J.*

The facts are stated by Mr. Justice Reade in delivering the opinion of this Court. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. M. L. McCorlde,*for the defendant.

Reade, J.

The prosecutor was going home from Court on Wednesday evening ‘‘in a drinking condition” with $35,00 *121in bis pocket-book in different sized bills ; was riding on a mule and was joined by the defendant on foot. They stopped at a house on the way and it was proposed that they should buy liquor to drink. Defendant said he had no money. Prosecutor took out his pocket-book, untied it, took out a quarter, handed it to the defendant to pay for the liquor and tied his pocket-book up again. After drinking until the prosecutor was drunk, they lqft the house and went on the road together. After going s(j>me distance, the prosecutor’s consciousness, which he had 'lost, returned to him and he found that he was down and the defendant was on his mule ; and feeling in his pocket for his pocket-book, he found it was gone. He told the defendant of the loss, and the defendant went back to the house to hunt for it. The next day defendant returned to the court house, got drunk and showed “a wad of bills of money” and said he had “a plenty.”

. The question is, whether there was *any*evidence to go to the jury, either that the money was stolen at all, or that the defendant was the thief.

These are the points ; (1.) the prosecutor -had the money in the house. (2.) The defendant knew he had it. (8.) They left the house in the night time, together, and c®ntin-ued together, until the money was missing. (4.) The prosecutor was uuconscious, and the defendant had an opportunity of handling his pei’son, the prosecutor having got down from his mule. (5.) The defendant had no money that night and had a “wad” of it next day. We think this was evidence from which the jury might have reasonably found that the defendant was guilty.

No error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE BONUS AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.7 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE BONUS AGREEMENT 
 (DTAC and DTAG) 

This Amendment is effective as of the 1st day of January, 2009 by and among DT Acceptance Corporation (“DTAC”)
and DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. (“DTAG”) (collectively, the “Company”) and Jon Ehlinger (the “Employee”). 
 RECITALS 
 A. The Company and Employee are parties to an
Executive Bonus Agreement, dated as of July 13, 2005 (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which the Employee replaced certain benefits under an Executive Sale Participation Plan, dated January 1, 2004 with certain payments
following the Payment Date as set forth in the Agreement. 
 B. The Company and Employee desire to amend the
Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment. 
 In consideration of the premises and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Defined Terms. Unless otherwise specified herein, all capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning given to such terms in the Agreement. 

2. Amendment to Section 3 of the Agreement. Effective as of January 1, 2009, Section 3 of the
Agreement is amended to delete the current table in this section and replace it as follows: 
  

				
	 Date of Contribution
	  	Amount of Contribution
	 May 1, 2006
	  	$	400,000
	 May 1, 2007
	  	$	400,000
	 May 1, 2008
	  	$	400,000
	 May 1, 2009
	  	$	200,000
	 May 1, 2010
	  	$	200,000
	 May 1, 2011
	  	$	400,000

 3.
Amendment to Section 6(e)(iii). Effective as of January 1, 2009, “2010” in Section 6(e)(iii) shall be changed to 2011. 
 4. Payment Date Distributions. For purposes of clarity under Section 6(b) of the Agreement, in calculating the first payment to Employee beginning on the first anniversary of the Payment Date
(May 1, 2011) the amounts allocated to the Employee’s Account shall include the May 1, 2011 contribution under Section 3. 
 5. Heading. The paragraph headings contained in this Amendment are for convenience of reference only and shall not be considered a part of this Amendment in any respect. 

6. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Arizona. 
 7. Execution in Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts
and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

[Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 








			
	 DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Ray Fidel

	 Its:
	 	 President

	
	 DT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Steven P. Johnson

	 Its:
	 	 President

	
	 /s/ Jon D. Ehlinger

	 Jon D. Ehlinger

		
	 Date:
	 	 4/3/09
Exhibit 10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 
 Lock-Up Agreement  
 _________ __, ______ 

 

			
	 By Facsimile (    )
	  	 By Facsimile ((804) 648-3404)

	Tibet Pharmaceuticals, inc.	  	Anderson & Strudwick, Incorporated
	Room 1701, 17/F	  	707 East Main Street
	 90 Jaffe Rd.
	  	20th Floor
	Wanchai, Hong Kong	  	Richmond, Virginia 23219
	Attn: Taylor Z. Gao	  	Attn: L. McCarthy Downs, III,
	         CEO	  	         Senior Vice President

  Re: Lock-Up Agreement 
 Dear Mr. Yu and Mr. Downs: 

The undersigned understands that Anderson & Strudwick, Incorporated (the “Placement Agent”), proposes to enter into a
Placement Agreement with Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), providing for the public offering (the “Offering”), by the Placement Agent of a minimum of 2,500,000 common shares and a maximum of 3,000,000 common shares
(the “Shares”). 
 In consideration of the Placement Agent’s agreement to undertake the
Offering of the Shares on a “best efforts, minimum/maximum” basis, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned agrees that the undersigned will not register, offer, sell,
contract to sell or grant any Shares or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for the Shares or any warrants to purchase the Shares (including, without limitation, securities of the Company which may be deemed to be
beneficially owned by the undersigned in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and securities which may be issued upon the exercise of a stock option or warrant) for a period of (a) as to one-half
( 1/2) of the Shares now or in the future beneficially owned by the
undersigned, ninety (90) days after the date of effectiveness or commencement of sales of the public offering and (b) as to the other one-half of such Shares now or in the future beneficially owned by such individual, one hundred ninety
(190) days after the date of effectiveness or commencement of sales of the public offering. 
  The undersigned
understands that the Company, the Placement Agent and the Representatives will proceed with the Offering in reliance upon this Lock-up Agreement. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Its: