alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Wayne K. PATTERSON, Warden, Colorado State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 8761.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1966.

Yale Huffman, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, alleging the existence of a great disparity between the sentence he is now serving and the sentence imposed upon a co-defendant, sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The trial court, after comprehensive review of the state court record determined that petitioner’s severe sentence had not been arbitrarily imposed so as to violate a federal constitutional right and denied the petition for the writ.

No appellate claim is made that the judgment of the district court is faulty either upon the merits or upon *269jurisdictional grounds. Appellate counsel does assert that petitioner’s conviction and sentence are suspect upon several grounds which have not bqen presented to the Colorado state courts and which were not decided by the federal district court. This court, of course, does not review arguments but limits its consideration to that which is decided in the court below.

The writ was properly denied and the judgment is affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6993 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare part A benefit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2024 

Mr. PALMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare 

part A benefit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Retirement Freedom 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT 

7 OF THE MEDICARE PART A BENEFIT. 

8 Any individual who is otherwise entitled to benefits 

9 under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act may 

10 elect (in such form and manner as may be specified by 

11 the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to opt out 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6993 IH

1 of such entitlement. Notwithstanding any other provision 

2 of law, in the case of an individual who makes such an 

3 election, such individual— 

4 (1) may (in such form and manner as may be 

5 specified by the Secretary) subsequently choose to 

6 end such election and opt back into such entitlement 

7 (in accordance with a process determined by the 

8 Secretary) without being subject to any penalty; 

9 (2) shall not be required to opt out of benefits 

10 under title II of such Act as a condition for making 

11 such election; and 

12 (3) shall not be required to repay any amount 

13 paid under such part A for items and services fur14 nished prior to making such election. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Conrad SCARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16356 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 3, 2017)

Brian Keith Korte, Korte & Wortman, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kimberly S. Mello, Laura J. Bassini, Greenberg Traurig, PA, Tampa, FL, Denise Michelle Rosenthal, Michele L. Stock-er, Greenberg Traurig, PA, Fort Lauder-dale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee. .

*593Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Conrad Scarry appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his initial complaint for failing to state a claim for relief and its order denying for futility his motion for leave to amend the complaint. The initial complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) did not adequately respond to Korte & Wortman’s request for information under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d) (2) (i) (A) because it failed to provide the telephone number of the entity that owns Scarry’s loan. The proposed amended complaint repeated this claim and added that Wells Fargo also violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(B) by not adequately responding to Scarry’s request for information related to loss-mitigation efforts and invoices related to property inspections, violated '' 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(l)(i) by failing to investigate the missing phone number, and violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f)(2) by failing to send a notification of noncompliance.

Loan servicers are not required to provide a loan owner’s telephone number under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A). *Mejia v. Omen Loan Servicing, LLC,*— Fed. Appx.-, 2017 WL 3396563 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2017). Nor must they furnish information unrelated to “servicing,” like the loss-mitigation and property-inspection information requested here. *See Hudgins v. Seterus, Inc.,*192 F.Supp.3d 1343, 1347-53 (S.D. Fla. 2016). Accordingly, Wells Fargo had no duty to investigate the information’s absence or send a noncompliance notification.

AFFIRMED.
# DISTRIC T ATTORNEY' S OFFIC E S S " &424 " Judicia l District s

COUNTIE S O F BUUNC O * BUBNET T • IXAN O • BAN SAB A 

# Wile y B . McAfe e Distric t Attorne y Ma y 

### 14, 201 5 Mr . Jeffer y D . Kyl e Cler k o f

Cour to f

Appeal s P. O . Bo x 1245 7 Austin , T X 7871 1 Re : Cas e No . 03-15-00289-CR ; Rafae l Hernandez-Prad o v . Th e Stat e o f Texa s Appea l fro m Caus e No . 976 7 i n th e 33r d Distric tCour to f Burne tCount y Dea rMr . Kyle : Pleas e accep tthi s lette ra s ou rdesignatio n o f Lea d Counse l fo rth e Stat e o f Texas , Appellee , i n th e abov e describe d case . Lea d Counse l fo rthi s cas e is : Gar y W . Bunyar d Assistan tDistric tAttorne y P.O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , T X 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 (voice ) (325 ) 247-527 4 (fax ) g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u s Texa s Stat e Ba rNo . 0335350 0



### 81 1 Berr y Stree t •P.O . Box72 5

•Uano . Texa s78843

•325-247-575 5

•Fa x325-247-527 4 Sincere l

cc : Mr . Gar y E . Prus t Attorne y fo rAppellan t vi a eServ e ACCEPTED 03-15-00289-CR 5277265 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/14/2015 8:29:41 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00788

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R. and T.R., Children

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 00015

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is

AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Father or appell ant Mother because

they are indigent.

SIGNED May 6, 2015.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
---

EXHIBIT 99.14

VIA EDGAR

|TO: | United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                       
|Re: | Asanko Gold Inc. (the
      "Company")                
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                            
|    | Consent of Expert                                     

This consent is provided in connection with the Company's
annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2016, and
any amendments thereto (the Annual Report), as filed by the Company
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Annual Report
incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys Annual Information
Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Information
Form).

I, David Morgan, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:

- the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation
  of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and
  scientific nature related to the Companys Asanko Gold Mine, contained in the
  Annual Information Form; and
- the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the
  Annual Report.



Dated March 15, 2017



|/s/ David Morgan          | 
|------------------------- | 
|David Morgan              | 
|M.Sc. Eng (Civil), CP Eng | 
|Managing Director         | 
|Knight Piesold Pty Ltd    | 

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report
of Power of the Dream Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K /A for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Viktor Rozsnyay, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: September 19, 2014



| | /s/ Viktor Rozsnyay                           | 
| | --------------------------------------------- | 
| | Viktor Rozsnyay                               | 
| | Title:    President & Chief Executive Officer | 





This certification accompanies this Report
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic
version 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.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
GA FINANCIAL, INC.

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of GA Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
V. Dionise, 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:

      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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

/s/ James V. Dionise
----------------------------
James V. Dionise
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
August 14, 2003

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to GA Financial, Inc. and will be retained by GA Financial, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Eliza O’Leary, Appellant, *v.*Anthony Walter, Sheriff, etc., Respondent.

(Argued November 24, 1872;

decided December 3, 1872.)

The prominent question presented was upon exception to the charge of the court. The exception was general. *JHJeld,*insufficient; that a general exception to a charge, in which several distinct propositions are stated, some of" them correct, brings before the appellate court no one proposition of law which may be claimed to be erroneous.

*Wermbergh & JReilley*for the appellant.

*J. JR. JBergen*for the respondent.

Allen, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 4.2    
  



	TUCKER ANTHONY SUTRO
 Capital Markets	 	 
	 	 	1601 Cloverfield Blvd.

Suite 300 South

Santa Monica, CA 90404

Phone 310.315.8000





October 31,
2001 


Mr. Marvin
Winkler

Co-CEO

SSP Solutions, Inc.

17861 Cartwright Road

Irvine, CA 92614 


Dear
Marvin: 


        This
letter will serve to modify the engagement letter (the "Original Letter") we signed on May 31, 2001 among Biz Interactive Zone, Litronic, Inc., SSP
Solutions, Inc. (together the "Company") and
Tucker Anthony Sutro Capital Markets ("TAS"). We mutually agree to modify the following sections of the Original Letter: 



        Section 2.    Term and Termination Rights:    Upon the execution of this agreement and the issuance of common
stock as described in section 3 below, the Company and TAS shall no longer be obliged to the terms of the Original Letter. 


        Section 3.    Compensation:    Sections 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) will be modified as follows: in lieu of the
$25,000 retainer payment now due and payable and the approximate $11,000 of unreimbursed expenses now due and payable, the Company will issue shares of common stock of SSP Solutions, Inc.
("Common Stock") upon execution of this agreement as follows: (i) 4,050 shares of Common Stock to Dain Rauscher Incorporated (ii) 2,000 shares of Common Stock to Forbes Burtt
(iii) 1,650 shares of Common Stock to Douglas Burke and (iv) 400 shares of stock to William Hannan. Dain Rauscher Incorporated, Mr. Burtt, Mr. Burke and Mr. Hannan
will benefit from certain standard registration rights for their Common Stock, including but not limited to piggyback registration rights. 


        Section 4.    Fees and Expenses:    Upon the execution of this agreement and the issuance of Common Stock as
described in section 3 above, the Company shall no longer be obligated to reimburse TAS for its out of pocket expenses. 





 



        Section 7.    Right of First Refusal:    This section shall be eliminated. 


        Please
confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreements by signing and returning to us the enclosed duplicate copy of this Agreement. 



	Very truly yours,	 	 
	

TUCKER ANTHONY SUTRO CAPITAL MARKETS
	

By:	

/s/  FORBES W. BURTT      
 Forbes W. Burtt
 Managing Director	
 	

 
	

Accepted and Agreed to as of the date written above:	
 	

 
	

SSP SOLUTIONS, INC.	
 	

 
	

By:	

/s/  MARVIN WINKLER      
 Marvin Winkler
 Co-Chief Executive Officer	
 	

 




2









QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 4.2
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.4(b)

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO BMC SOFTWARE, INC.
                       2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, BMC SOFTWARE, INC. (the "Company") has heretofore adopted the
BMC SOFTWARE, INC. 2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the "Plan") for the
benefit of certain employees of the Company and its subsidiaries; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of
January 1, 2000:

         1. The following new Subparagraph (d) shall be added to the end of
Paragraph IV of the Plan:

                  "(d) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY THE COMMITTEE. Notwithstanding
         the preceding provisions of this Paragraph IV or any other provision of
         the Plan to the contrary, the Committee may from time to time, in its
         sole discretion, delegate to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company
         the administration (or interpretation of any provision) of the Plan,
         and the right to grant Awards under the Plan, insofar as such
         administration (and interpretation) and power to grant Awards relates
         to any person who is not subject to Section 16 of the 1934 Act
         (including any successor section to the same or similar effect). Any
         such delegation may be effective only so long as the Chief Executive
         Officer of the Company is a Director, and the Committee may revoke such
         delegation at any time. The Committee may put any conditions and
         restrictions on the powers that may be exercised by the Chief Executive
         Officer of the Company upon such delegation as the Committee determines
         in its sole discretion. In the event of any conflict in a determination
         or interpretation under the Plan as between the Committee and the Chief
         Executive Officer of the Company, the determination or interpretation,
         as applicable, of the Committee shall be conclusive."

         2. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
Certification
         I, Susan Mills, certify that:

          1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all
reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-WFHE4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

          2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic
reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

          3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution,
servicing and other information required to be provided under
Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in
the Exchange Act periodic reports;

          4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

          5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably
relied on information provided to me by the following
unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Citibank, N.A.



                                   Date March 30, 2007
                                   CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN
                                   TRUST INC.

                                   By: /s/ Susan Mills
                                   ------------------------
                                   Name: Susan Mills
                                   Title: Vice President
                                   Date: March 30, 2007
#### Irving Lonstein, Respondent, *v.*Onondaga Freight Corp., Appellant.

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*736
      *David B. Sugarman*and *Arthur W. Burrows*for appellant.

*Benjamin Lonstein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 677 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 112
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 677

     To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 1995

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                 May 18 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

                Reported by Mr. Hatch without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    (a) Repeal.--Subsection (a) of section 1392 of title 28, United 
States Code, is repealed.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 1392 of title 
28, United States Code, is amended by striking ``(b) Any'' and 
inserting ``Any''.

                                                       Calendar No. 112

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 677

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                 May 18 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
While EPA expects the yearly emissions in each state, on

average, to equal the level of the budgets, EPA also estimated the air quality impacts of 5, 10, 15, and 20 percent emission variability using the air quality assessment tool , which is presented in section 4 of the “Power Sector Variability Final Rule TSD . ” Th at analysis shows that year

- to - year fluctuations of up to 20 percent in SO 2 emissions from upwind states linked to a given downwind receptor do not undermine the abil ity of the Transport Rule programs to resolve nonattainment or maintenance concerns at that receptor. The analysis presented in the TSD focuses on SO 2 emissions and was designed to examine the sensitivity of downwind air quality to upwind EGU emissio n levels. The share of total SO 2 emitted by EGUs is significantly larger than the share of total NO X emitted by EGUs. For example, in the states for which EPA modeled base case contributions of these pollutants, EGUs accounted for 74 percent of total SO 2 , 14 percent of total annual NOX , and 15 percent of total ozone

- season NOX emissions. Therefore, when varying EGU emissions only, downwind air quality would be most sensitive to upwind variations in SO 2 , because relative variations in EGU SO 2 emissions have a greater impact on total SO 2 emissions than the same relative variation in EGU NO X emissions would have on total NOX emissions affecting downwind air quality. Because the Transport Rule only affects upwind emissions from EGU sources,downwind air quality would be more sensitive to variability in

upwind state SO2 emissions under this rule than variability in upwind state NOx emissions under this rule (given that the rule affects a smaller scope of total NO X emissions compared to the

scope affected of total SO 2 emissions) . Thus, EPA chose to analyze the “worst - case” potential downwind air quality impacts from year - to - year variability above upwind state SO2 budgets, and EPA therefore believes that its findings from this analysis are valid for ascertaining the potential downwind air quality impacts from variation at those levels in both SO 2 and NOX under the Transport Rule programs.