alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10a.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. 29 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-138190) pertaining to Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170897) and Amendment No. 393 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.













/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


April 1, 2014
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8778 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to authorize 

use of amounts under the Troubled Assets Relief Program to be used 

for activities under the Emergency Solutions Grant Program of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Hardest Hit 

Fund Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2020 

Mrs. TORRES of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 to authorize use of amounts under the Troubled 

Assets Relief Program to be used for activities under 

the Emergency Solutions Grant Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Hardest 

Hit Fund Program of the Department of the Treasury, 

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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8778 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep Your Home and 

3 Prevent Homelessness Act of 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 2. USE OF TARP AMOUNTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Emergency Economic Sta6 bilization Act of 2008 is amended by inserting after sec7 tion 110 (12 U.S.C. 5220) the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 110A. OTHER ASSISTANCE. 

9 ‘‘Notwithstanding section 115(a), section 120, or any 

10 other provision of law, the Secretary may use any amounts 

11 made available under this title that are not otherwise obli12 gated to provide assistance under the Emergency Solu13 tions Grant Program under subtitle B of title IV of the 

14 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

15 11371 et seq.) or the Hardest Hit Fund Program of the 

16 Secretary under this title.’’. 

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

18 in section 1(b) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 

19 Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 note) is amended by insert20 ing after the item relating to section 110 the following 

21 new item: 

‘‘110A. Other assistance.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2022207EN.01005501.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/55

---

Action brought on 11 April 2022 — Eggers & Franke v EUIPO — E. & J. Gallo Winery (EF)

(Case T-183/22)

(2022/C 207/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and H. Förster, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E. & J. Gallo Winery (Modesto, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark EF — Application for registration No 17 927 894

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 729/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and in case of an intervention also the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and in case of an intervention also the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

---
Exhibit 32.1


            Certification of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
               Monument Resources, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


     I, A.G. Foust, certify that:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Monument
Resources, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, A.G. Foust, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and

          2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


                                               By:  /s/ A.G. Foust
                                                  ----------------------------
                                               Name:  A.G. Foust
                                               Title: Chief Executive and
                                                      Financial Officer
                                               Date:  May 5, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-614]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1147-DR]


Hawaii; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Hawaii (FEMA-1147-DR), dated November 26, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective December 9, 1996.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-614 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ALTON JOSEPH JOLIVET TE, JR. §

§ CASE NOS. 01

- 15

- 00672

- CR

VS. § 01

- 15

- 0067 3

- CR

§ 01

- 15

- 0067 4

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

Appellant Alton Joseph Jolivette , through counsel, moves the Court to extend

time to file his brief, due November 30, 2015

, for the following reasons:

1

. Counsel, Assistant Public Defender, Melissa Martin has been working on many

case s including, but not limited to Humphrey v. State , 14

- 15

- 00226

- CR; Hill v State , 01

- 14

-

00945

- CR ; Bonds v. State , 01

- 15

- 00688

- CR; Davison v. State , 14

- 14

- 00511

- CR; and Cameron

v. State, 14

- 15

- 00447

- CR, as well as the instant case and has been unable to comp lete the

brief despite due diligence.

2

. This is the first request for an extension in this case.

In view of the foregoing, Mr. Jolivette asks the Court to extend the time to file

his brief for 30 days, or up to and including December 30

, 2015

. This request is made

in the interest of justice and effective assistance of counsel and not for purposes of

delay.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief, Harris County Public Defender’s Office

/s/ Melissa Martin

_________________________________ MELISSA MARTIN

Assistant Public Defender

TX. Bar No. 24002532

1201 Franklin St., 13 th Fl.

Houston, TX 77002

email: melissa.martin@pdo.hctx.ne t

713/274

- 6709 Fax 713/437

- 4319 ACCEPTED

01-15-00673-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/1/2015 9:17:00 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was electronically served on the

Harris County District Attorney’s office on December 1, 2015

.

/s/ Melissa Martin

__________________________ Melissa Martin
No. 11-11089.

#### Huerta Guillen *v.*Ollison, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnny Wayne CALLEN Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2372

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 6, 2018

Filed: February 9, 2018

Dustin S. Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Johnny Wayne Callen, Pro Se

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Callen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
# C_2023189EN.01000701.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/7

---

Appeal brought on 22 December 2022 by Zaun Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-231/21, Praesidiad v EUIPO — Zaun (Poteau)

(Case C-780/22 P)

(2023/C 189/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zaun Ltd (represented by: C. Weber, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Praesidiad Holding

By order of 17 April 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Zaun Ltd should bear its own costs.

---
#### Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. PEREZ, Correctional Officer; W. Sillas, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15586

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gregory C. Bontemps appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. We have jurisdiction under 28. U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Bontemps consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then revoked Bontemps’ in forma pauperis status on the basis that Bontemps had accrued three strikes and dismissed Bontemps’ action for failure to pay the filing before the named defendants had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (prisoner cannot bring a civil action if he has accrued three strikes). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Bontemps’ request for appointment of counsel,, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2023164EN.01002602.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/26

---

Appeal brought on 7 November 2022 by Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-9/22, Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO

(Case C-681/22 P)

(2023/C 164/33)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Kondrat, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 27 February 2023, the General Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
AGREEMENT  FOR  DEFERRAL  OF  1997  ANNUAL  CASH  BONUS


     Ralston  Purina  Company  ("Company")  and    NAME  agree that, effective
                                                 ------
November 1, 1997, $ DEFERRAL awarded to Participant under the 1997 Annual Cash
                  ----------
Bonus  Award  Program shall be deferred, as requested by Participant, into the
option  or  options  available  under  the  Deferred Compensation Plan for Key
Employees  ("Plan"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by
reference  herein.

     Pursuant  to  Participant's  request,  the  following  amounts  have been
deferred  for  Participant  in  the  manner  set  forth  below:

     (1)          EQUITY  OPTION  -
                  -----------------

          (a)          $  EQUITY  in  a  Deferred  Stock Equivalent Account in
                       ---------
Participant's  name under the Equity Option as set forth in Section 2.2 of the
Plan.

          (b)          $  MATCH  in  a  Deferred   Stock Equivalent Account in
                       --------
Participant's  name  representing  Company  Matching  Deferral  (25% of amount
listed  in  1(a)  above)  as  set  forth  in  Section  2.2(b)  of  the  Plan.


(2)           SHORT-TERM VARIABLE INTEREST OPTION - $ SHORT in a Deferred Cash
              -----------------------------------   -------
Account  in Participant's name under the Variable Interest Option as set forth
in  Section  2.3  of  the  Plan;  provided, however, that, notwithstanding any
provision  to  the  contrary  contained  in  the Plan, amounts attributable to
deferrals  into  the  Short-Term  Variable  Interest  Option  shall be paid to
Participant  in  January  1998.


(3)             LONG-TERM VARIABLE INTEREST OPTION - $ LONG in a Deferred Cash
                ----------------------------------   ------
Account  in Participant's name under the Variable Interest Option as set forth
in  Section  2.3  of  the  Plan.


     Participant's  deferral  hereunder is pursuant to the Plan and is subject
in all respects to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and of the Plan.
No  other  communications  or  representations, written or oral, made prior or
subsequent  to  this Agreement shall be deemed to amend or modify the terms of
this  deferral  except  by  an  agreement  in  writing executed by the parties
subsequent  to  the  date  of  this  Agreement,  expressly  consenting to such
amendment or modification.  Participant hereby waives any rights, and releases
Company  from  any  claim,  based  on  any  such  prior  communications  or
representations,  if  any.

ACCEPTED:                              RALSTON  PURINA  COMPANY


_____________________________                    By:__________________________
          Participant                                     C.  S.  Sommer
    					               Vice  President  and
				                        Director,  Administration
_____________________________
          Date

i:sec\10k-97\ex10xvii.doc
No. 11-10597.

#### Vasquez-Rojas *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 7, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00360

- CR

Deandre Jerome DORCH

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2 016CR9222B

The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State's Motion for Permission to File Post

- Submission Supplemental Brief is hereby

GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on June 7, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

s1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139369

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139369 COA: 283611 Wayne CC: 06-009068-FH PATRICK LAMAR CRY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 9, 2010 

# Order

November 9, 2010

138602

CATHERINE WILCOX, individually, and as Next Friend of ISAAC WILCOX, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and

SUNRISE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Intervening Plaintiff, SC: 138602 v COA: 290515 Kent CC: 08-010129-NF STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ____________________

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered, the order of April 16, 2010 which granted leave to appeal is VACATED and leave to a ppeal is DENIED because we are no longer persuaded the questions pres ented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul J. VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2125

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED March 8, 2018

(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-00521-JAP-l) (D. New Mexico)

*804Marisa A. Ong, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul J. Vasquez, Pro Se.

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Robert E. Bacharach, Circuit Judge

Mr. Paul Vasquez was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. He appeals, and his attorney filed a brief invoking *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)- and moving to withdraw based on the absence of any reasonable grounds for appeal. We conclude that any appellate challenges would be frivolous. Thus, we grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

Under *Anders,*attorneys can seek leave to withdraw from an appeal when they conscientiously examine a case and determine that an appeal would be frivolous. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, To obtain leave to -withdraw, an attorney must

> submit a brief to the client and the appellate court indicating any potential appealable issues based on the record. The client may then choose to submit arguments to the court. The [c]ourt must then conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous. If the court concludes after such an examination that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal.

*United States*v. *Calderon,*428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). .

Mr. Vasquez’s counsel filed a brief, moving to withdraw. We base our decision on the brief filed by defense counsel and the record on appeal. In reviewing the record, we engage in de novo review. *See United States v. Kurtz,*819 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2016) (“When counsel submits an *An-ders*brief, our review of the record is de novo.”). Exercising de novo review, we conclude that any appellate grounds would be frivolous. Thus, we grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

*

 Mr. Vasquez’s counsel has not requested oral argument, and we conclude that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. *See*Fed, R. App, P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R, 34.1(G). Thus, we have declined to conduct oral argument,

Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 'estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).