alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
================================================================================
                                Promissory Note
$                                               ,                       , 19   
 ---------                      ----------------  ---------------------     ---

                       after date, I (or if more than one maker) we jointly and 
----------------------
severally promise to pay to the order of                at
                                        ---------------    ---------------------
                                                                        DOLLARS,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
with interest thereon at the rate of    % per annum from 
                                    ---                  -----------------------
until paid; interest to be paid 
                                ------------------------------------------------
and if not so paid,  all principal and interest,  at the option of the holder of
this note, to become  immediately  due and  collectible.  Any part hereof may be
paid at any  time.  If this  note is  placed  in the  hands of an  attorney  for
collection,  I/we promise and agree to pay holder's  reasonable  attorney's fees
and collection  costs,  even though no suit or action is filed hereon; if a suit
or an action is filed,  the amount of such  reasonable  attorney's fees shall be
fixed by the court or courts in which the suit or action,  including  any appeal
therein, is tried, heard or decided.

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

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

                                                 -------------------------------
================================================================================
FORM NO. 216--PROMISSORY NOTE. TB      STEVENS-NESS LAW PUB. CO., PORTLAND, ORE.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan NOL-TERRON, a/k/a Ariel Molina Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4801.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2013.

Decided: May 24, 2013.

Todd Allen Smith, Law Office of Todd Allen Smith, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee,

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

*191Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Nol-Terron, a/k/a Ariel Molina Hernandez, pled guilty to possessing five or more false identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1028(a)(3), (b)(2)(B) (West 2000 & Supp.2012), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) (Count 4), and to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006) (Count 5). On appeal, Nol-Terron asks whether the district court erred at his sentencing hearing by ruling that the two offenses to which he pled guilty were not related counts under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(“U.S.S.G.”) § 3D 1.2 (2011). Nol-Terron argues that, because his two offenses should have been grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, he should not have received a two-level multiple count adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Grouping decisions are reviewed for clear error. As *United States v. Pitts,*176 F.3d 239 (4th Cir.1999). The Sentencing Guidelines provide that if a defendant is convicted of multiple counts “involving substantially the same harm,” the counts “shall be grouped together.” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. Counts implicate substantially the same harm when they “involve the same victim and two or more acts or transactions connected by a common criminal objective or constituting part of a common scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b). Here, the district court found that there were two different victims or goals to be protected, *i. e.*the immigration offense (Count 5) was intended to protect national borders whereas the identification offense (Count 4) was intended to protect society’s interest in the integrity of various identification documents. (J.A. 81-82). We find no clear error in the district court’s above finding. *Pitts,*176 F.3d at 244.

Accordingly, we affirm Nol-Terron’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 42-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 24 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH     Document 16      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 15 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 15 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dennis Castaldo, Respondent, v Fee Oil Company et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Levine, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 10, 1986.

Claimant suffered serious injuries when he was hit by a car while repairing a truck in the course of his employment. Claimant’s immediate injuries were held to be compensable in a prior Workers’ Compensation Board decision not involved in this appeal. Approximately 16 months after the accident, *923claimant first complained to a doctor that he had been experiencing excessive thirst and urination for about six months. Claimant was diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus.

Claimant, who has no family history of diabetes, sought additional benefits contending that the condition was precipitated by his prior compensable accident. The Board considered the testimony of three physicians who reached different conclusions as to whether the diabetes was causally related to the stress experienced by claimant following the accident. While all three doctors agreed that diabetes may be brought on by stress or trauma, only one doctor opined that in this case claimant’s diabetes was caused by such stress rather than hereditary factors. The Board determined that the diabetes was causally related to the accident and an appeal by the employer and carrier ensued.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the Board erred as a matter of law in finding that causation had been established. The Board’s decision in this case reflected its resolution of conflicting medical testimony. Indeed, all that was before the Board were questions of fact and credibility and we perceive no basis to disturb the Board’s conclusion that a causal relationship existed between the accident and the subsequent manifestation of diabetes *(see, e.g., Matter of Nizich v Robert F. Barreca, Inc.,*86 AD2d 917). Contrary to the employer’s and the carrier’s contention, the Board’s decision is clear and unequivocal in finding causation and its use of the word "presumed” in phrasing its finding does not vitiate the determination.

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05722-BSJ-DCF Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 8 of 8
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Joan Gottlieb Mendell v. Laurence Scott and Rachel Chaput

Appellate case number: 01-20-00471-CV

Trial court case number: 475348

Trial court: Probate Court No 1 of Harris County

On October 8, 2020, appellant Joan Gottlieb Mendell filed an emergency motion for 

temporary relief, seeking a stay of the October 19, 2020 trial setting in the underlying case until 

such time as the appeals pending before this Court in the above-styled case and in Case No. 01-20-

00578-CV are finally decided. Appellant’s emergency motion for temporary relief is denied. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Adams

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 13, 2020
Order entered April 2 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 2
- 0 1411
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01414
- CR
MURRELL NORMAN MUCK , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 366
- 81548
- 2011, 366
- 81549
- 2011 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On March 26, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeals; (2) appellant is indigent; (3) Tim Avery, who had been appointed to represent appellant, has had personal and business issue s that prevent him from continuing the appeal; (4) Mr. Avery has been allowed to withdraw and the court has appointed William Schultz to represent appellant; and (5) Mr. Schultz indicated he would need ninety days to complete appellant’s brief.We DIRECT the Clerk to substitute William Schultz as appellant’s appointed attorney of record in plac e of Tim Avery.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief by JULY 1, 2013 . Because appellant’s brief is already two months overdue, no further extensions will be granted.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, William Sch ultz and the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Exhibit No. 1
Western Media Group
Form 10-KSB, 2000
File No. 2-71164

                  MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE

             AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION


CORPORATE NAME:

     Western Media Group Corporation

This  amendment  is  effective on the day it is  filed  with  the
Secretary State, unless you indicate another date, no later  than
30 days after filing with the Secretary of State.

The   following  amendment  of  articles  regulating  the   above
corporation  was adopted: (Total number of pages  including  this
form __)


                           ARTICLE VI

Authorized shares are 100,000,000 shares with a $.001 par value.


This  amendment has been approved pursuant to Minnesota  Statutes
chapter  302A or 317A.  I certify that I am authorized to execute
this  amendment and I further certify that I understand  that  by
signing  this amendment, I am subject to the penalties of perjury
as  set forth in section 609.48 as if I had signed this amendment
under oath.


Dated:  October 10, 2000                By: /s/ Patrick Riggs,
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                E-1
<PAGE>
DOCSNY-288341 

Robert J. Higgins, Esq. (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen, Esq. (JC-8614) 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-2714 

(212) 277-6500 

Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 

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 

LUIS RODRIGUEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

110 CHURCH LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-05313-AKH 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION 

OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

BY MERRILL LYNCH 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

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

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), as and for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption 

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, 

hereby adopts Merrill Lynch’s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was 

filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 

MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 21 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 2
2 

DOCSNY-288341 

WHEREFORE, Merrill Lynch demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 January 18, 2008 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen 

______________________________________ 

Robert J. Higgins (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 21 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 13 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 13 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 13 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 042501C]


Marine Mammals; File No. 995-1608

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Mr. Thomas F. Norris, Science 
Applications International Corp., 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite 105A, San 
Diego, California 92110, has been issued a permit to take gray 
(Eschrichtius robustus), minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and 
Bryde's (Balaenoptera edeni) whales for purposes of scientific 
research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 
phone (301)713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376;
    Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 
1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426;
    Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long 
Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018; and
    Protected Species Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, NMFS, 1601 
Kapiolani Blvd., Rm, 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808) 973-
2935; fax (808) 973-2941.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy Adams or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-
2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 21, 2000, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (65 FR 80420) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take gray (Eschrichtius robustus), minke 
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Bryde's (Balaenoptera edeni), blue 
(Balaenoptera musculus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), and humpback 
(Megaptera novaengliae) whales had been submitted by the above-named 
individual. The requested permit has been issued for the three non-
endangered species of whale (gray, minke, and Bryde's) only, under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216). The request for a permit 
related to the three endangered species of whale (blue, fin, and 
humpback) is deferred pending receipt of a report of the effects of the 
tags on the non-endangered species.

    Dated: May 4, 2001.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-11840 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending May 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Jay Lutsky, Principal Executive Officer and Director of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Jay Lutsky



 Jay Lutsky,

 Principal Executive Officer and Director

May 25, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jemel STONE, a.k.a. Satin Stone, a.k.a. Teddy Blaze, a.k.a. Satin Marshall, a.k.a. Derrick Volt, a.k.a. John Hatchet, a.k.a. Freddie Reese, a.k.a. B., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-11901

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 10, 2013.

R. Brian Tanner, James C. Stuchell, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jemel Stone, Petersburg, VA, pro se.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jemel Stone, *pro se,*appeals the district court’s denials of his motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration, following his conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court concluded that Stone qualified for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), but declined to reduce his sentence after consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, noting that Stone attempted to sell cocaine base while in possession of a firearm and had a lengthy criminal history.

We review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. James,*548 F.3d 983, 984 n. 1 (11th Cir.2008). Under § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if the sentence was based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In determining whether to reduce a sentence, the court must first recalculate the defendant’s guidelines range under the amended guidelines and must then consider whether a reduction is warranted by the § 3553(a) factors. *United States v. Bravo,*203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.2000). The court’s power to reduce a defendant’s sentence is discretionary. *United States v. Vautier,*144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir.1998).

*890The district court’s order here demonstrates that it properly recalculated Stone’s amended guidelines range and then properly considered the pertinent factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and Stone’s criminal history. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider Stone’s post-conviction rehabilitation, *see*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment, (n. l(B)(iii)) (“The court *may*consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant .... ” (emphasis added)), and it adequately explained its reasons for denying Stone’s motions. Accordingly, we find the court did not commit a clear error in judgment by declining to reduce Stone’s sentence and affirm the denial of Stone’s motion for a sentence reduction and his motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 54 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### IN RE JERMAINE S. ET AL.

*Tiffany W.,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided May 17, 2005

The petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 819 (AC 25065), is denied.
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. 76 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) and Amendment No. 732 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, 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

    December 20, 2019
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 3 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 3 of 3