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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00680]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-335, OMB Control No. 3235-0381]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form 40-F

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

    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.
    Form 40-F (17 CFR 249.240f) is used by certain Canadian issuers to 
register a class of securities under Section 12 of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78l) or as an annual 
report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Exchange Act (15 
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)). The information required in the Form 40-F is 
used by investors in making investment decisions with respect to the 
securities of such Canadian companies. We estimate that Form 40-F takes 
approximately 431.42 hours per response and that there is an average of 
approximately 175 responses annually. We estimate that 25% of the 
431.42 hours per response is prepared by the issuer for an internal 
burden of 18,875 hours ((0.25 x 431.42) hours per response x 175 
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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 by March 17, 2025.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief 
Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg, 
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an e-mail to: 
[email protected].

    Dated: January 8, 2025.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-00680 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SHAKEEL KAHN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-8079 (D.C. No. 2:17-CR-00029-ABJ-1) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , BACHARACH , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Defendant appeals from the distr ict court’s order dated Octobe r 3, 2018, denying his motion for release pe nding trial. Defendant is cha rged with more than twenty counts of violations of the Controlled Substances Act. He was originally released on bond with conditions , but his bond was revoked when the district court found that he had violated cond itions of release by contacting a witness. Since then he has filed three motions seeki ng release, all of which have b een denied. Defendant

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t he determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 6, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 now appeals the most recent deni al, arguing that his prolonged pretrial detention violates his right to due process. In reviewing the district court’ s order denying release, this c ourt reviews mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and factual findings f or clear error. United
States v. Cisneros , 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the parties’ fi lings in this court and the dis trict court order and filings, we affirm the distr ict court’s order denying relea se for substantially the reasons stated in its October 3 , 2018 order. Specifically, we find no error in the district court’s ruling that defe ndant’s pretrial detention to this point does not violate his due process rights under the particular circumstances of th is case.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2008 (the Report) 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                     |  |                                                                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | CLEARPOINT BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                                 |  | /s/ Michael D. Traina                                                  
|                        |  |  |  |                                     |  | Michael D. Traina Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                                 |  | /s/ John G. Phillips                                                   
|                        |  |  |  |                                     |  | John G. Phillips Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer) 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7014

BENJAMIN ROSS DOWNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; MANAGER, COURT

AND LEGAL SERVICES; DAVID ROBINSON, Warden; T.

ESTEP, Assistant Warden; E. B. WALKER, Assistant Warden; B. JOHNSON, Treatment Program

Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-239-3)

Submitted: October 9, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Ross Downey, Appellant Pro Se. Vaughan Christopher Jones,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Downey v. Angelone, No. CA-97-239-3 (E.D. Va. June

16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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. 4 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-193277) and Amendment No. 357 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N for Variable Annuities for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP







Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


September 29, 2016
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of LYFE Communications, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Robert A. Bryson, President and CEO and Stephen L. Russo, CFO 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:  (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 result of operations of the Company.


|      |                   |  |     |                                    
|----- | ----------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------
|Date: | November 22, 2010 |  | By: | /s/Robert A. Bryson                
|      |                   |  |     | Robert A. Bryson, President and CEO
|      |                   |  |     |                                    
|Date: | November 22, 2010 |  | By: | /s/Stephen L. Russo                
|      |                   |  |     | Stephen L. Russo, CFO
IN RE: Sangbahn Y. SCERE

NO. 2019-B-0082

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM

Respondent was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, providing a false identity to an arresting officer, and multiple DWIs. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Sangbahn Y. Scere, Louisiana Bar Roll number 31958, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 13 - 00271 - CV

________________________ IN THE ESTATE OF JESSIE GRAY, DECEASED On Appeal from the County Court Bailey County, Texas Trial Court No. 2556 ; Honorable Sherri Harrison , Presiding

June 10 , 2014 

### CONCURRING OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. I concur with the opinion of the majority. I write separately, however, to express my opinion that, while the trial court’s judgment, entitled Order for Delivery of Homestead Property to Surviving Spouse might be construed as determining that Appellee, Celia Gray, has a life - time possessory interest in the property the subject of this dispute, this Court’s opinion should not be read as reaching that conclusion. As the majority correctly states, we are faced with a situation where the record was not sufficiently developed to allow this Court, or the trial court, to determine whether the disput ed property was “among the decedent’s effects” and therefore, subject to an2

order of delivery pursuant to section 272, or an allowance in lieu of exempt property pursuant to section 273 of the Texas Probate Code. See T EX . P RO B . C ODE A NN . §§ 27 2, 273 ( W est Supp. 2013). 1 However, a s stated by the majority , in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume the record supports the trial court’s implied decision that the property was a part of the decedent’s estate . Accordingly, I believe the opinion of this Court should be construed no further than saying the trial court did not err in ordering that Celia Gray holds a possessory homestead interest in whatever property interest the Estate of Jessie Gray might have owned upon his death.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice

1 I n 2009, the Texas Legislature repealed the Texas Probate Code with an effective date of January 1, 2014, and recodified the statutes as the Estates Code. See Act of May 26, 20 09, 8 1st Leg., R.S., ch. 680, § § 1, 10(a), 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 1512 , 1731 - 32. Section 272 is now section 353.052 , and section 273 is now section 35 3.053. See T EXAS E STATES C ODE A NN . § § 353.052 & 353.053 (W e st Pamphlet 2013).
# C_2019399EN.01009001.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/90

---

Action brought on 25 September 2019 — Universität Bremen v Commission and REA

(Case T-660/19)

(2019/C 399/109)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Bremen (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Schmid, Agent)

Defendants: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 16 July 2019 rejecting Proposal No 870693 (TenOpt), in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Call: H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 July 2019 rejecting Proposal No 870693 (TenOpt), in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Call: H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-2019;

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision at issue infringes its right, derived from the rule of law, to have its request for funding reviewed without any errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant submits that the evaluation was vitiated by the following:

| — | distortion of the facts, that is to say that essential particulars of the request for funding were incorrectly reproduced in the evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion of the facts, that is to say that essential particulars of the request for funding were incorrectly reproduced in the evaluation;

| — | failure to comply with generally applicable assessment criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with generally applicable assessment criteria;

| — | inequality of treatment, arbitrariness and irrelevant considerations. |
| --- | --- |

—

inequality of treatment, arbitrariness and irrelevant considerations.

---
Albert DIAL v. Lela DIAL

2160567

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<Page>

                                                               Exhibit 10.9(a)-2

                                   JOINDER TO
                            MASTER CORPORATE GUARANTY

          Reference is made to that certain Credit Agreement among PEI Holdings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower"), the various financial institutions as
are, or may from time to time become, parties thereto ("Lenders"), and Bank of
America, N.A., as administrative agent for the Lenders ("Agent"), dated as of
March 11, 2003 (as such document is amended, modified or supplemented from time
to time, the "Credit Agreement").

          In order to induce Agent and the other Lenders to continue to make
advances to Borrower under the Credit Agreement and in accordance with Section
6.10 of the Credit Agreement, the undersigned, a newly formed subsidiary of
Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., hereby agrees to become a party to that
certain Master Corporate Guaranty, dated as of March 11, 2003 (as amended,
modified or supplemented from time to time, the "Guaranty"; capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings stated in the Guaranty),
among Playboy Enterprises, Inc., certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of
Borrower and Agent, by executing this Joinder to Master Corporate Guaranty, and
further agrees that, in accordance with the Guaranty on and after the date set
forth below, the undersigned is a "Guarantor" thereunder and shall be bound by
all the terms, provisions and obligations of the Guaranty.

          The undersigned hereby agrees that it makes each of the
representations set forth in the Guaranty as of the date set forth below.

          In all other respects, the Guaranty shall remain unchanged and in full
force and effect in accordance with its original terms.

Dated: July 22, 2003

                                           ANDRITA STUDIOS, INC.,
                                           a California corporation

                                           By  /s/ Robert D. Campbell
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           Its Treasurer, Robert D. Campbell

ACCEPTED:

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
  as Administrative Agent

By  /s/ David A. Johanson
  ----------------------------
    David A. Johanson
Its Vice President
Case 2:03-cv-00129-J Document 30 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 148
#### Raymond, Incorporated, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. Gladys A. Locklear et al., *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 25, 1927.

*Leitner & Leitner,*for Appellant;

*W. W. Whitehurst,*for Appelees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted *to*the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order 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 order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cristina MORRIS, Appellant, v. BAOWEI XIA, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2912

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

FILED April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# Exhibit 21 
Subsidiaries of Registrant  100 percent Owned

| | Byron
Bank          2445  84th Street, S.W.          Byron Center, MI  49315
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Byron
Investment Services, Inc. (100 percent owned subsidiary of Byron Bank)
                  2445  84th Street, S.W.                   Byron Center, MI  49315
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Byron
Insurance Agency, Inc. (100 percent owned subsidiary of Byron Investment Services)
                  5445  32nd Avenue                   Hudsonville, MI 49426
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | OAK
Title Insurance Agency, Inc. (100 percent owned subsidiary of Byron Investment Services)
                  2445  84th Street, S.W.                   Byron Center, MI  49315
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2698-149]

On August 14, 2024, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee), filed an application for a non-capacity amendment of the license for the Bear Creek Development of the East Fork Hydroelectric Project No. 2698. On December 13, 2024, the licensee filed a notice withdrawing the amendment application. The Bear Creek Development, one of three developments within the East Fork Hydroelectric Project, is located on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.

                    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,[1]                                          the withdrawal of the application became effective on December 30, 2024.[2] 

Dated: January 6, 2025.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 385.216(b) (2024).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that if a filing deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or other day when the Commission is closed for business, the filing deadline does not end until the close of business on the next business day. 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2024). Because the filing deadline falls on a Saturday (                        *i.e.,*                         December 28, 2024), the filing deadline is extended until the close of business on Monday, December 30, 2024.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-00517 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P