alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2. Agreement to Guarantee. The New Guarantors hereby agree, jointly and severallywith all existing Guarantors (if any), to provide an unconditional Guarantee on the terms andsubject to the conditions set forth in Article X of the Indenture and to be bound by all otherapplicable provisions ofthe Indenture and the Notes and to perform all of the obligations and agreements of a Guarantorunder the Indenture.3. No Recourse Against Others. No past, present or future director, manager, officer,employee, incorporator, stockholder or member of the Issuers, any parent entity of the Issuers orany Subsidiary, as such, shall have any liability for any obligations of the Issuers or theGuarantors under the Notes, this Indenture, the Guarantees or for any claim based on, in respectof, or by reason of, such obligations or their creation. Each Holder of Notes by accepting a Notewaives and releases all such liability. The waiver and release are part of the consideration forissuance of the Notes. The waiver may not be effective to waive liabilities under the federalsecurities laws.4. Notices. All notices or other communications to the New Guarantors shall be givenas provided in Section 12.02 of the Indenture.5. Ratification of Indenture; Supplemental Indentures Part of Indenture. Except asexpressly amended hereby, the Indenture is in all respects ratified and confirmed and all theterms, conditions and provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect. This SupplementalIndenture shall form a part of the Indenture for all purposes, and every Holder of Notes heretoforeor hereafter authenticated and delivered shall be bound hereby.6. GOVERNING LAW. THIS INDENTURE, THE NOTES AND THE GUARANTEES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY,AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.7. Counterparts. The parties may sign any number of copies of this SupplementalIndenture. Each signed copy shall be an original, but all of them together represent the sameagreement.8. Effect of Headings. The section headings herein are for convenience only and shallnot affect the construction hereof.9. Trustee Makes No Representation. The Trustee makes no representation as to thevalidity or sufficiency of this Supplemental Indenture.[The rest of this page is intentionally blank]
 
2

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Supplemental Indenture to be dulyexecuted and attested, all as of the date first above written.Dated: January 11, 2011      VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2869-2870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1178]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 2

[FRL-6933-1]


Public Information and Confidentiality: Rescheduling of a 
Previously-Announced Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is rescheduling the public meeting on its advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and potential revision of the 
confidential business information (CBI) regulations scheduled for 
January 18, 2001, as advertised in the December 21, 2000 Federal 
Register (65 FR 80394).

DATES: This meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, March 7, 2001 
from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the EPA Auditorium, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC. The meeting has been rescheduled based on requests from 
the public to allow additional time for stakeholder participation and 
to avoid

[[Page 2870]]

potential travel difficulties in the Washington, D.C. area the week of 
January 20, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Margolis, Office of Information 
Collection, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Code 2822, 
Washington, DC 20460; Phone, 202-260-9329; Fax, 202-401-4544; Email, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214c4053464e4d48520f404d404f614451400f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2afa3b0a5adaeabb1eca3aea3ac82a7b2a3eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 8, 2001.
Mark Luttner,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 01-1178 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LOREN MICHELLE TOELLE, a.k.a. Loren

Bell, a.k.a. Christmas, a.k.a. Loren Giles,

a.k.a. Momma,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 30101

D.C. No. 2:16

- cr

- 00019

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN , BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Loren Michelle Toelle ap peals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges her guilty

- plea conviction s and concurrent 212

- month sentence s for

conspiracy to distribute controlled substances , in violation of 21 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 30101

§§ 841 (a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S

. C.

§ 1956(h). Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Toelle ’s counsel

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as c ounsel of record. We have provided Toelle the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed.

Toelle waived her right to appeal her conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of th e record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Symetra Financial Corporation (the
registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [paragraph omitted in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)];c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report,
based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 10, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Thomas M. MarraThomas M. MarraPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Clear All

        03 April 2023    

                    USS Porter (DDG 78) arrives in Kalundborg, Denmark                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78) arrived in Kalundborg, Denmark, April 2, 2023 for a scheduled port visit and mid-deployment voyage repair (MDVR).            

        20 March 2023    

                    USS Porter (DDG 78) arrives in Tallinn, Estonia                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78) arrived in Tallinn, Estonia, March 20, 2023 for a scheduled port visit to enhance U.S.-Estonia relations as the two nations work together for a stable, secure, and prosperous Europe.            

#####  

##### 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 3, 2021

No. 04-21-00216-CR & 04-21-00217-CR

John David BABYAK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR9102, 2018CR9104

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief in these consolidated appeals was originally due July 29, 2021; however

the court granted appellant an extension of time until August 30, 2021. Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time has been filed. 

We therefore order appellant’s appointed counsel, Edward F. Shaughnessy, to file 

appellant’s the brief by September 13, 2021.

Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, 

filed by the date the brief is due, that: (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances warranting 

further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and 

(3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the 

requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be 

an extraordinary circumstance.

If the brief or a conforming motion is not filed by the date ordered, this appeal may be 

abated for a hearing pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2). 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 73 Filed 08/29/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 73 Filed 08/29/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of GelTech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Hull, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.



Date: May 15, 2008



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL R. HULL          
|Michael R. Hull              
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Jacqueline P. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Appellee.

66 F.3d 1226

No. 95-5001.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1995.

Before: SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s Petition for Rehearing, it is

ORDERED, by the Court, that the opinion filed herein on June 23, 1995, 56 F.3d 1497, is amended, as follows:

*At Page 2, Paragraph 2*[56 F.3d at 1500.]

delete the first sentence and insert in lieu thereof

We vacate the district court’s order to the extent it is moot and affirm that order in all other respects.

*At Page 20*[56 F.3d at 1509.]

delete the last paragraph and insert in lieu thereof

The district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction is vacated to the extent moot and in all other respects affirmed for the reasons stated above.

So Ordered.
#### VALDES *v.*MUNICH. SAME *v.*WOOD. SAME *v.*PERIANES.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR PORTO RICO.

Nos. 457, 473, 474.

Motions to dismiss or affirm.

Submitted January 18, 1909.

Decided February 1, 1909.

Writs of error to the District Court of the United States'for Porto Rico, dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the judgments sought to be reversed were each less than $5,000. Plaintiffs below were citizens of the United States and Porto Rico, and the defendant a citizen of . Spain who filed pleas to the jurisdiction and claimed that by the over- *569. ruling of such pleas he had been denied rights under the treaty of Paris and laws of the United States.

Writ of error to review 3 Porto Rico; 251, 503, dismissed.

*Mr. Willis Sweet*for defendant in error in Nos. 457 and 473, and *Mr. Willis Sweet*and Mr. *Joseph Anderson, Jr.,*for. defendant in.error'in No. 474, in support of the.motion.

*Mr. F. Kingsbury Curtis, Mr, John G. Carlisle*and *Mr. Henry A. Stickney*in'Nos.- 457 and 474; *Mr. F. Kingsbury Curtis*and *Mr. Henry A. Stickney*in No. 473 for plaintiff in error, in opposition.

*Per Curiam:*

Writs of error dismissed for want of jurisdictional amounts. Act of April 12, 1900, c. 191, 31 Stat. 77, §§ 34, 35; Act of March 2, 1901, c. 812,31 Stat. 953, § 3; *Royal Insurance Company*v. *Martin,*192 U. S. 149, 159; *Ortega*v. *Lara,*202 U. S. 339; *Perez*v. *Fernandez,*202 U. S. 80; *Garrozi*v. *Dastas,*204 U. S. 64, 73.
Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 16 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 16 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Garcia, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), both rendered February 24, 1986, convicting him of bail jumping in the second degree under indictment No. 62162 and robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 62582, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Waymon Bruce JOYNER, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6351.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2013.

Decided: April 29, 2013.

*162Waymon Bruce Joyner, III, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Waymon Bruce Joyner, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joyner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
October 6, 2006

Via Electronic Mail

Ms. Fileen A. Donovan

Acting Sceretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

I ISS 24st Street. NW

Washington, D.C, 20581

Re CBOE Futures I:exchange. LLC Rule C
Submission Number CT'L:-2006-15

fication

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Pursuant to Séction Se(e)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act. as amended ("Act"), and
§40.6(a) of the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("Commission") under the Act. CBOF Futures Exchange, LLC ("CFE" or "Exchange") hereby
submits a CFE rule amendment ("Amendment") that expands the number of contract months that
CFE may list for trading with respect to the CBOE Volatility Index ("VEX") futures contract and
the CBOE DNA Volatility Index ("VXD") futures contracts.

The Amendment will become effective on October 9. 2006.

CEE as not aware of any substantive opposing views to the Amendment. CFE hereby
certifies that the Amendment comphes with the Act and the regulations thereunder.

the Amendment, marked to show additions in underlined text and deletions in
[bracketed] text. consists of the following

kee
Rule 1202. Contract Specifications

(a) No change

{b) Schedule. The Exchange may list for trading up to [three] six near-term

serial months and five months on the February quarterly cycle for the VIX futures
contract. The final settlement date for a VIX futures contract shall be on the Wednesday
that is thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately following
the month in which that contract expires.

‘The trading days for VIX futures contracts shall be the same trading days of options on
the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index, as those days are determined by CBOE.

400 South LaSalle Street Chicago. Illinois 60605-1023 www.cboe.com/cfe


Ms. Eileen A. Donovan
Page 2 of 2

7570 or Jenny Klebes at (312) 786-7466. Please reference our subnnssion number C

The trading hours for VIX futures contracts are from 8:30 a.m, Chicago time to 3:15 p.m.
Chicago time.

(ch. (ny No change.
tee
Rule 1702. Contract Specifications
{a) No change
(b) Schedule, The Exchange may hst lor trading up to [three] six near-term

serial] months and five months in the February quarterly cycle (February, May, August.
November). The final settlement date for the VXP futures contract shall be the
Wednesday that is thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately
following the month in which the applicable VND futures contract expires.

The trading days tor VWXD futures contracts shall be the same trading days of options on
the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index, as those days are determined by CBOE.

The trading hours for VND futures contracts are from 8:30 a.m. Chicago time to 3:15
p.m, Chicago ume.

(ce) (ny No change.

bk eee

Questions regarding this submission may be directed to Arthur Reinsteim at (312) 786-
-2006-15

in any related correspondence

ce:

CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC

Fay
Managing Director

Thomas Leahy (CFTC)
Mark Baumgardner (OCC)
Edward Dasso (NFA)