alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#                                                                         USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) completes patrol in U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations                                                                    

##### by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Joseph Macklin 

26 February 2024
                An MH-60S Sea Hawk, attached to the "Tridents" of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 9, flies near the Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) in the Mediterranean Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jacob Mattingly)                            231224-N-HJ055-1438                            An MH-60S Sea Hawk, attached to the "Tridents" of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 9, flies near the Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) in the Mediterranean Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jacob Mattingly)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Petty Officer 2nd Class Jacob MattinglyVIRIN: 231224-N-HJ055-1438ROTA, Spain - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) returned to Naval Station Rota, Spain, following the completion of its Forward-Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) patrol in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations, July 26.

“I couldn’t be more proud to lead this incredible crew,” said Bulkeley’s Commanding Officer Cmdr. Richard Slye. “Every Sailor operated with professional precision, achieving everything asked of them.”

The ship conducted various port visits, exercises, training, escorting and integrating into various ships and groups throughout the 6th fleet area of responsibility.

During the patrol, Bulkeley operated with with Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 12 and USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) during their deployment. Bulkeley also escorted USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) and USS Bataan (LHD-5) on separate missions.

Also embarked during the patrol was the “Jokers” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 79, which is comprised of two MH-60Rs helicopters and 31 sailors, who executed 470 flight hours.

For more than 80 years, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa (NAVEUR-NAVAF) has forged strategic relationships with our Allies and partners, leveraging a foundation of shared values to preserve security and stability in the region.

Headquartered in Naples, Italy, NAVEUR-NAVAF operates U.S. Naval forces in the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) areas of responsibility. U.S. Sixth Fleet is permanently assigned to NAVEUR-NAVAF and employs maritime forces through the full spectrum of joint and naval operations.

Tags:
**USS Bulkeley (DDG 84)
Clear All

        03 April 2024    

                    USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) Operates in the Baltic with Finnish Navy Ship Uusimaa (05)                 
                The Arleigh Burke Class guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) operated in the Baltic Sea alongside the Finnish Naval Ship Uusimaa (05) as part of the maritime exercise – Baltic Eagle.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated December 20, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 457 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-233802) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 20, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1620 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1620

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                        Chesapeake Bay Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2019

 Mrs. Luria (for herself, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. 
  Sarbanes) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                        Chesapeake Bay Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Program 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.

    Section 117(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1267(j)) is amended by striking ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2001 through 2005'' and inserting ``$90,000,000 for fiscal year 
2020, $90,500,000 for fiscal year 2021, $91,000,000 for fiscal year 
2022, $91,500,000 for fiscal year 2023, and $92,000,000 for fiscal year 
2024''.
                                 <all>
```
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

          - [Docket No. RP01-385-000]

Take notice that on April 23, 2001, USG Pipeline Company (USGPC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets: First Revised Sheet No. 34, First Revised Sheet No. 52, First Revised Sheet No. 56, and First Revised Sheet No. 71.

USGPC states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's Order No. 587-M issued November 30, 2000, in Docket No. RM96-1-015. USGPC states that it proposes to place these revised tariff sheets into effect on May 1, 2001.

USGPC states that complete copies of this filing are being provided to its sole customer, United States Gypsum Company, which receives service as certificated under Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, and to interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or  protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://ww.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11345  Filed 5-4-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05738-PKC-AJP Document 19 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05738-PKC-AJP Document 19 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50320 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOEL ROMERO-SID, also known as Noe Torres, also known as Joel Romero Sid, also known as Joel Arturo Sid, also known as Joel Sid-Romero, also known as Joel Ramirez Duarte, also known as Joe Fernandez, also known as Joel Fernando Gutierrez, also known as Noe Navarrete Torres, also known as Noe Nebarrete Torres, also known as Noe Navarette Torres, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-02-CR-271-ALL-SS

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joel Romero-Sid appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Romero-Sid complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues thatNo. 03-50320 -2- the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Romero-Sid thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Romero-Sid acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,479,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,554,000
<PP&E>                                      12,278,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,280,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,385,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          722,000
<BONDS>                                      1,271,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,429,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,385,000<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,135,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,205,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               392,000<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                70,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,037,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,462,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,462,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,462,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
<FN>
<F1>#25 includes $5,963,000 of Minority Interest in Joint Venture.
<F2>#30 represents Minority Interest Portion of Current net loss.
<F3>No value difference between EPS-Primary & EPS-Diluted.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Jacob Eiseman et al., Respondents, v State of New York, Appellant.

— Motion to be relieved of judgment for costs denied. Memorandum: On appeal from the Court of Claims, we affirmed and granted costs against the State. Our order was reversed by the Court of Appeals and the claim against the State was dismissed *(Eiseman v State of New York,*109 AD2d 46, *revd*70 NY2d 175). The State now moves for an order relieving it from the judgment for costs. CPLR 5015 (a) (5) provides that the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it where there has been a reversal of a prior judgment or order upon which it was based. Since the judgment for costs was entered in the Court of Claims, the State should address its motion to that court. Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

512 

KA 10-01151 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY J. THOMPSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

PATRICIA M. MCGRATH, LOCKPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P.

Punch, J.), rendered April 19, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession

of a forged instrument in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a forged

instrument in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 170.25). We

reject defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal

was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People

v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). County Court “ ‘expressly ascertained from

defendant that, as a condition of the plea, he was agreeing to waive

his right to appeal, and the court did not conflate that right with

those automatically forfeited by a guilty plea’ ” (People v Porter, 55

AD3d 1313, lv denied 11 NY3d 899). Although the further contention of

defendant that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily

entered survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v

Bland, 27 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053, lv denied 6 NY3d 892), defendant

failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to move to

withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People

v Smith, 48 AD3d 1171, lv denied 10 NY3d 964; Bland, 27 AD3d at 1052-

1053). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the

preservation doctrine (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666; Smith, 48

AD3d at 1171).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further

contention concerning the failure to comply with the procedural

requirements set forth in CPL 400.21 (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d

636, 637; People v Vega, 49 AD3d 1185, 1186, lv denied 10 NY3d 965). 

In any event, defendant waived strict compliance with the statute by
-2- 512 

KA 10-01151 

admitting his commission of the prior felony conviction in open court

(see Vega, 49 AD3d at 1186; People v Harris, 233 AD2d 959, lv denied

89 NY2d 1094).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude

that they are without merit.

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 24 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
**Exhibit 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accountant**We have issued our reports dated March 6, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Applica Incorporated appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the aforementionedreports in the Registration Statements of Applica Incorporated on Form S-3 (File No. 33-26955,effective February 8, 1989), Form S-8 (File No. 33-36424, effective on August 17, 1990), Form S-8(File No. 33-58574, effective February 22, 1993), Form S-3 (File No. 333-06759, effective June 25,1996), Form S-8 (File No. 333-52389, effective May 12, 1998), Form S-8 (File No. 333-52383,effective May 12, 1998), Form S-8 (File No. 333-86507, effective August 3, 1999), Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-39986, effective June 23, 2000) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-39990, effective June 23, 2000)./s/ Grant Thornton LLPMiami, Florida
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Bernard Briskin, Chief Executive Officer of Arden Group, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 thatto the best of my knowledge (1) the annual report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended January 3,2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   | /s/BERNARD  BRISKIN      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Bernard  Briskin         |
|   | Title: | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | March 16, 2009      |
|        |        |                          |  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
DOCSNY-271747v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

ANGEL SERRANO (AND WIFE, TANNY 

SARMIENTO), 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

222 BROADWAY, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-4516-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. and 222 BROADWAY, LLC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen___ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendants 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. and 

222 BROADWAY, LLC 

Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 18 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
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. 38 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141759) and Amendment No. 520 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019,
      with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a
      separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    /s/Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2019
Order entered April 10, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00429-CV

IN RE THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY AND RICHARD 

RAUCH, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-06553-2019

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT relators’ April 9, 

2020 motion and DISMISS this original proceeding without prejudice.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11326]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME: Thursday, May 10, 2001, Meeting Open 
to the Public.
    This meeting has been cancelled.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1200.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-11326 Filed 5-1-01; 3:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M