alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Managed Futures Charter Graham L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian Centner, Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, 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(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 Partnership.




























By:
/s/ Brian CentnerName:
Brian CentnerTitle:
Chief Financial Officer ofCeres Managed Futures LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
November 9, 2011
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $5.92 CWT 0.965 $5.7128

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.6118 LB 3.5 $9.1413

Class I Price $14.8541

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $5.46 CWT 0.965 $5.2689

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.5363 LB 3.5 $8.8771

Class I Price $14.1460

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.7082

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0609

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0304

Price change per quart $0.0152

Price change per pint $0.0076

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0055

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0046

Price change per half pint $0.0038

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.06

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per quart $0.02

Price adjustment per pint $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Sept. 2, 2018
#### James F. Doyle, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Sarah Leach Sweat, Joined by Her Husband, Charles J. Sweat, *Defendants in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 2, 1926.

Petition for Rehearing denied March 5, 1926.

*J. T. Watson,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Whitaker, Simes di Whitaker,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
No. 11-212.

#### Craig Reeves, Petitioner v. Jane Roe, et al.

565 U.S. 1059, 132 S. Ct. 760,

181 L. Ed. 2d 483,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8557.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.

Same case below, 392 S.C. 143, 708 S.E.2d 778.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40746-40747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20365]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission Office of Filings and Information Services Washington, DC 
20549

Extension:
    Rule 17a-3 SEC File No. 270-26 OMB Control No. 3235-0033

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-3 [17 CFR 240.17a-3] under the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 requires records to be made by certain exchange members, brokers, 
and dealers, to be used in monitoring compliance with the Commission's 
financial responsibility program and antifraud and antimanipulative 
rules as well as other rules and regulations of the Commission and the 
self-regulatory organizations. It is estimated that approximately 7,786 
active broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission incur 
an average burden of 1,938,714 hours per year to comply with this rule.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in 
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate 
Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549.


[[Page 40747]]


    Dated: July 24, 1998.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20365 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 11-6489.

#### Marshall Lee Gore, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 1065, 132 S. Ct. 768,

181 L. Ed. 2d 494,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8504,

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 66 So. 3d 302.
Percentage of private provider sites actively participating in a grantee

immunization information system-- United States, six cities§, and eight Territories†, 2008

§ Chicago, IL (0%-33%);

District of Columbia (95%–100%); 

Houston, TX (0%–33%); 

New York City, NY (67%–94%); 

Philadelphia, PA (67%–94%); 

San Antonio, TX (0%–33%).

National Coverage: 37% (excluding Territories)

Source: CY2008 IISAR

* In transition is defined as a grantee implementing a new 

IIS product.

† American Samoa (No Report);

Guam (No Report);

Marshall Islands (0%-33%);

Federated States of Micronesia (0%-33%);

N. Mariana Islands (No Report);

Palau (No Report);

Puerto Rico (0%-33%);

Virgin Islands (No Report).

No report

In Transition*

0-33%

34-66%

67-94%

95-100%
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAIME NATER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 366 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of June, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 11-6127.

#### Gary D. Easley, Petitioner v. California, et al.

565 U.S. 985, 132 S. Ct. 513,

181 L. Ed. 2d 361,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7792.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 583.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-29

Lower Tribunal No. 9-4484

________________

Clarence Moore,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler-Mendez, Judge.

Clarence Moore, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
SCALES, J.

Appellant Clarence Moore appeals the trial court’s order denying Moore’s

motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for the trial court to issue a non-final

order that would allow Moore the opportunity to file an amended motion.

In his timely motion, Moore raised four grounds challenging his conviction

and thirty-year sentence for attempted second-degree murder. All four grounds

were based on the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. The trial court order

denying Moore’s motion specifically granted Moore leave to file an amendment

with regard to two of the grounds alleged pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d

754 (Fla. 2007). The trial court’s order appeared final as to the third ground, while

the fourth ground was based on the alleged cumulative effect of the other three

grounds.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2), the trial court

should have issued a non-final order striking grounds one and two of the motion

with leave to amend within the prescribed sixty days. See Lawrence v. State, 987

So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that the purpose of issuing a non-final

order with leave to amend is to limit post-conviction claims to a single proceeding,

resulting in a single final order on the merits).

2
Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for the entry of

such an order, granting Moore sixty days with which to amend grounds one and

two of the motion. If Moore does not timely amend his motion, the trial court may

then enter a final order that is a disposition on the merits of all of Moore’s claims.

If Moore files an amended motion, the trial court should consider the amendment

and proceed accordingly, and thereafter render a single, final, appealable order.

Reversed and remanded.

3
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
**GERALO**

**c. MlWN**  **Asril 17,**  **1999** ***--** Xoaorable E. C. Thornton, Jr. Chairan, &ppropriatlona C5mmlttee state or T;rira~ **Houe of**  **Mqmesentatirss Au8tiq,**  **‘ ieus**  **Dou sirs** 

**. ;.** 

**. .**  *****

**.**Honorable X. E. Thognton, Jr., April 17, 1939, Page ?2
Jilsothat portlbn of Article 6674q-6 df the Revised Civil Statutes pertainingto the use of the gasoline tax allocated to the State liighway fund provides that it shall be used *for the oonatructlonand maintenance of the pub110 roads of the State, constitutingand oomprining the ayatem ot State hlghwayys

of Texas, a8 designatedby the State Righway OoPmrimsion Of TeXaa."~

The l-age or this act Is olear and unambiguous and speoirically set8 torth the purpose8 **r0r** which the State ai@miy raad &lall,beused.Honorable E. H. Thornton, Jr., April 17, 1939, Page 9
This ease was reversed by tbs Sup-e Court of Texao in 156 5. i?.197 for the reaaoo that in the oaae In queetlon there wae m conflictbetween tbs. appropriation made and'ln the prior law it was alleged to hava affected. The Supreme Court held in said case as rollowe:

"There is m exprees repeal of the fornrtrlaw; heacre, if repealed, it must be by implication,which lrr'not 

### ravortd.” The 

### luaguagsof the Su~remoCourt and 

### the SanAntooio 6aut of Ullll-4th r&err06 to ebmo olaorlyladioater6bat 

### -0 rape& og an o~xhtinglaw **by** 

### a rt4.r **to** 

### .#IB apprOp+.diOU **bill lr**  **oodemwd by**  the Court&. 

### prQporsdrl#era8th0lpte~a~Hpup mnt f6oaah o6horaad aoarly ocmflltt.

Me this

foreming roa8oa8we baliwe thet,t?opropoti outat thoShrw

appwt- .

**wR8sAwu .**
# Contents

# IL-City of Chicago

# IL-Rest of State

# NY-City of New York

# NY-Rest of State

# PA-Philadelphia County

# PA-Rest of State

# TX-Bexar County

# TX-City of Houston

# TX-Dallas County

# TX-El Paso County

# TX-Rest of State

# U.S. Virgin Islands

# Data Notes
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $11.63 CWT 0.965 $11.22

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $3.6774 LB 3.5 $12.87

Class I Price $24.09

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $10.60 CWT 0.965 $10.23

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $3.5671 LB 3.5 $12.48

Class I Price $22.71

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $1.38

(4) Price change per gallon $0.12

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.06

Price change per quart $0.03

Price change per pint $0.01

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.01

Price change per half pint $0.01

(6) Price adjustment per gallon (128-oz) $0.12

Price adjustment per half gallon (64-oz) $0.06

Price adjustment per quart (32-oz) $0.03

Price adjustment per pint (16oz) $0.01

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.01

Price adjustment per half pint (8-oz) $0.01

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Nov 6th, 2022
02/09/23

Adults 65 years of age or older have the option to receive PCV20 if they previously completed the pneumococcal 

vaccine series with both PCV13 and PPSV23 and meet the following criteria:

Previously received one dose of PCV13 (but not PCV15 or PCV20) at any age

Previously received all recommended doses of PPSV23 (including 1 dose of PPSV23 at or after the age of 65 years)

The determination to administer PCV20 is based on a shared clinical decision-making process (SCDM) between 

a patient and their healthcare provider. SCDM recommendations are optional and informed by the characteristics, 

values, and preferences of the patient, and the clinical discretion of the healthcare provider.

If you discuss PCV20 vaccination with a patient 65 years or older who previously completed the 

pneumococcal vaccine series with both PCV13 and PPSV23:

Remember: PCV20 is not routinely recommended for these individuals as their risk of disease 

is lower due to prior vaccinations. Their remaining risk depends on

Their risk for exposure to serotypes contained in PCV20

The presence of underlying medical conditions or other risk factors that increase 

the risk of developing severe disease

Time since last pneumococcal vaccination (i.e., ≥5 years)

Consider: Increased risk of exposure to PCV20 serotypes may occur among persons

Living in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities

Living in areas with low pediatric pneumococcal conjugate vaccine uptake

If exposed, people with one or more of the following health issues are at increased 

risk of severe pneumococcal disease:

Immunocompromising condition*

Cochlear implant

Cerebrospinal fluid leak

More than one of these chronic medical conditions: alcoholism; chronic heart, 

liver, or lung disease; cigarette smoking; or diabetes

Vaccine efficacy of both PCV13 and PPSV23 decreases with increasing time 

since vaccination.

If you 

vaccinate: 

If you and your patient decide PCV20 is appropriate, give one dose of PCV20 

at least 5 years after their last pneumococcal vaccine dose.

PCV20 is safe unless a patient had a severe allergic reaction to a:

Previous dose of PCV13 or any vaccine containing diphtheria-toxoid

Vaccine component (PCV20 or any vaccine containing diphtheria-toxoid)

* Chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome, immunodeficiency, iatrogenic immunosuppression, generalized malignancy, HIV, Hodgkin disease, leukemia, 

lymphoma, multiple myeloma, solid organ transplant, congenital or acquired asplenia, sickle cell disease, or other hemoglobinopathies.

Additional Information:

CDC Adult Immunization Schedule:

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html

CDC PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor App for Clinicians:

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/hcp/pneumoapp.html

CDC Pneumococcal Vaccine Information:

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/hcp/index.html

Shared Clinical Decision-Making

PCV20 Vaccination for 

Adults 65 Years or Older

U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention
Field Name    				Length  
------------  				--------
ITEM_NM_KY_WD_4401			VAR/DLM(|)
PINC_3084				CHAR(7)
84

Section C: Recommended Funding Levels, by State

Connecticut

Program Intervention Budgets: 2014

Recommended Annual Investment $32.0 million

Deaths in State Caused by Smoking

Annual average smoking-attributable deaths 4,900

Youth aged 0-17 projected to die from smoking 56,100

Annual Costs Incurred in State from Smoking

Total medical $2,039 million

State Revenue from Tobacco Sales and Settlement

FY 2012 tobacco tax revenue $418.2 million

FY 2012 tobacco settlement payment $123.8 million

Total state revenue from tobacco sales and settlement $542.0 million

Percent Tobacco Revenue to Fund at Recommended Level 6%

Annual Total (Millions) Annual Per Capita

Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended

I. State and Community Interventions 

Multiple social resources working together will 

have the greatest long-term population impact.

$9.1 $11.4 $2.53 $3.18

II. Mass-Reach Health Communication Interventions 

Media interventions work to prevent smoking initiation, 

promote cessation, and shape social norms.

$2.6 $3.7 $0.72 $1.03

III. Cessation Interventions 

Tobacco use treatment is effective and highly cost-effective. $8.0 $12.7 $2.23 $3.54

IV. Surveillance and Evaluation 

Publicly funded programs should be accountable and 

demonstrate effectiveness.

$2.0 $2.8 $0.55 $0.78

V. Infrastructure, Administration, and Management 

Complex, integrated programs require experienced 

staff to provide fiscal management, accountability, 

and coordination.

$1.0 $1.4 $0.27 $0.39

TOTAL $22.7 $32.0 $6.30 $8.92

Note: A justification for each program element and the rationale for the budget estimates are provided in Section A. The funding estimates presented are based on adjustments for changes in population and cost-of-living increases since Best Practices—2007 was published. The actual 

funding required for implementing programs will vary depending on state characteristics, such as prevalence of tobacco use, sociodemographic 

factors, and other factors. See Appendix E for data sources on deaths, costs, revenue, and state-specific factors. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • Office on Smoking and Health

www.cdc.gov/tobacco • tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov • 1 (800) CDC-INFO or 1 (800) 232-4636 

2014
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-us" lang="en-us" id="no-js">
<head>
<meta content="Percussion CM System" name="generator"/>
<meta name="perc_linkback" id="perc_linkback" content="Fm1lYWRtbHgHZHgBY2FieAZmZWB4E2JjZmdnbA=="/><!-- Internal Release Version # 3.7 -->
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="keywords" content="Yellow Fever Vaccine Course, Traveler's Health" /> 

<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/yellow-fever-vaccine-course">
  <meta name="DC.Language" scheme="ISO 639-1" content="en-us" />
<meta name="template.version" content="2.7.0" />
<meta name="cdc:content-id" content="804189"/>
<meta name="cdc:revision-id" content="1"/>

<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.cdc.gov/travel-training/index.html"/>
<title>Yellow Fever Vaccine Course- subsection title - section title - site title</title>
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html>
*DoD 4000.25-7-M, March 2004*

DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

**DIC FAE/FAF FORMAT**

**REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF NON-FUEL BILLING ANDFOLLOW-UP ON REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF NON-FUEL BILLING**

96

	APPENDIX 3.1

1
No. 11-6930.

#### Steve Nathaniel Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1045, 132 S. Ct. 600,

181 L. Ed. 2d 440,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8158.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 757.
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. 45 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-26032) pertaining to Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account E, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 46, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 30, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) March 30, 2012, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account E.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP







Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


March 30, 2012
No. 11-6660.

#### Alfonso Rubio-Ayala, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1018, 132 S. Ct. 560,

181 L. Ed. 2d 404,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7931.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 435 Fed. Appx. 755.
# Influenza Table 2023-2024
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROCIO VIVIANA MONCADA FLORES

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00020

- C R

Appeal from the

218th Judicial D istrict Court

o f La Salle County, Texas

(TC# 21

- 09

- 00051

- CRL )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on Appellant’s “ Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal, ” which

we construe as a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a) (governing

voluntary dismissal of appeals in criminal cases). Appellant represents in the motion that s he no

longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Along with the s ignature of h er attorney, t he motion also bears

Appellant’s signature on its face

. We have not yet issued an opinion in this case. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a)

.

GINA M. PALAFOX , JUSTICE

May 5 , 2023

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.

1 This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the

Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 . We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of

Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 41.3

.
# SV CV3 2016

# SVCV3 2015

# SVCV3 2014