alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 5 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 6 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 7 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 8 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 9 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 10 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 11 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 12 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 13 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 14 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 15 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 16 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 17 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 18 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 19 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 20 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 21 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 22 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 23 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 24 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 25 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 26 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 27 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 28 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 29 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 30 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 31 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 32 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 33 of 34
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 1-6 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 34 of 34
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. 35 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141766) and Amendment No. 386 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), 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 Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H 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
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 10886 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Cameron Michael McTague,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19
- CR
- 501 - 2

**____________ __________________**  Before **Jones** , **Elrod,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Cameron Michael McTague has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). McTague has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the r elevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circu it 

### FILED November 14, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10886 Document: 00516966518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2023No. 22
- 10886

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-10886 Document: 00516966518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2023
cmes?

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

url. ory

November 7, 2005

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Amendments to Minimum Price Variation for Options on LIBOR futures

Submitted per Sec. 5e(c)(1) of the CEA and Regulation Sec. 40.6(a).
CME Submission # 05-119.

Dear Ms. Webb:

Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME” or “Exchange”) hereby certifies with the
Commission the amendments to the rules governing the minimum price variation for Options on
One-month LIBOR futures. The Exchange certifies that this amendment complies with the Act
and rules thereunder.

The underlying futures for the Options on One-Month LIBOR futures trade at increments
of 0.0025 IMM index points’ (also known as one-quarter basis point, or one-quarter tick).
Following this amendment, the option contracts will also trade in the same 0.0025 IMM index
point increments in all contract months. The text of the rule amendment is as follows, with
additions underlined and deletions bracketed and overstruck.

CHAPTER 453A
Options on One-month LIBOR Futures

"CME Submission no. 05-88.
20 South Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60606-7499, Tel. 312-930-1000


Ms. Jean A. Webb
November 7, 2005
Page 2 of 3

453A01. OPTION CHARACTERISTICS
453A01.A. Contract Months, Trading Hours, and Trading Halts
[Unchanged]
453A01.B. Trading Unit
[Unchanged]

453A01.C. Minimum Fluctuations

The price of an option shall be quoted in IMM One-Month LIBOR Index points. Each .01
IMM One-Month LIBOR Index point (1 basis point) shall represent $25, For example, a
quote of 0.35 represents an option price of 875 dollars (35 basis points x 25 dollars).

The minimum fluctuation shall be .0025 IMM One-Month LIBOR Index Point (also known
as one-quarter tick).

[2-Contract-Menth—Whese-Underlying-Futures—Contract-Month—is_the Ni +-Expiri
7 IRE P'
Futures-Contraet Month
The-mini fluctuation-shall_be-0025_IMM-One-Month-IBOR-Index_point (al
2—All Contract Months-Exehading the Contract Month Whose-Underlying Futures-Contraet
Monthis the N. + Expiring Futures Contract Menth
Ppiring.
The-mini fluctuation-shall_be—005—_EMM-One-Month-LIBOR—Index_peint_tal
k half-tick) —Frad yal t-a-price-of 0025-IMM-One-Menth
EIBOR-ndex-point- ($6.25_-alse- arter-tiek),-wheth ot-such-trad
It in- the liquidation of positions for beth parties te-thetrade-]
“ft Lie Li =.

[The remainder of Chapter 453A remains unchanged.]

The foregoing amendments shall be effective on the trade date of November 14, 2005.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Richard Co at 312-930-3227 or rco@cme.com if any
questions arise during the processing of this submission. Please reference our CME Submission
#05-119 on all future correspondence for this submission.


Ms. Jean A. Webb
November 7, 2005
Page 3 of 3

Sincerely,

John W. Labuszewski, Managing Director
Research & Product Development
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2109 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods or services, 

to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2019 

Miss RICE of New York (for herself and Mr. COOK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in awarding a contract 

for the procurement of goods or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Boosting Rates of 

5 American Veteran Employment Act’’ or the ‘‘BRAVE 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2109 IH

1 SEC. 2. PREFERENCE FOR OFFERORS EMPLOYING VET2 ERANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 81 of 

4 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding after 

5 section 8128 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans 

7 ‘‘(a) PREFERENCE.—In awarding a contract for the 

8 procurement of goods or services, the Secretary may give 

9 a preference to offerors that employ veterans on a full10 time basis. The Secretary shall determine such preference 

11 based on the percentage of the full-time employees of the 

12 offeror who are veterans. 

13 ‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES FOR MISREPRESEN14 TATION.—(1) Any offeror that is determined by the Sec15 retary to have willfully and intentionally misrepresented 

16 the veteran status of the employees of the offeror for pur17 poses of subsection (a) may be debarred from contracting 

18 with the Department for a period of not less than five 

19 years. 

20 ‘‘(2) If the Secretary carries out a debarment under 

21 paragraph (1), the Secretary shall commence debarment 

22 action against the offeror by not later than 30 days after 

23 determining that the offeror willfully and intentionally 

24 misrepresented the veteran status of the employees of the 

25 offeror as described in paragraph (1) and shall complete 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2109 IH

1 debarment actions against such offeror by not later than 

2 90 days after such determination. 

3 ‘‘(3) The debarment of an offeror under paragraph 

4 (1) includes the debarment of all principals in the offeror 

5 for a period of not less than five years.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

8 after the item relating to section 8128 the following new 

9 item: 

‘‘8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# EXHIBIT 31.2

# CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Justin W. Shireman, certify that:

1.        I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of
Insignia Systems, Inc.;

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 we 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 is made known to us by others within the Company, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)       [Intentionally
omitted];

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; and

d)       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 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; and

b)       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:   March 30, 2006 | /s/   Justin W. Shireman                                                        
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Justin W. ShiremanVice President of Finance and CFO(principal financial officer)

---
142 So. 533

#### STATE ex rel. FOSHEE v. BUTLER, State Tax Com’r.

3 Div. 17.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1932.

Reynolds & Reynolds, of Clanton, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and A. A. Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Martin, Thompson & McWhorter, of Birmingham, amici curise.

‘FOSTER, J.

This is a companion case to that instituted for the same purpose upon the relation of Chilton county. Ante, p. 191, 142 So. 531. *195Both cases are treated and considered at the same time. Many of the legal questions are the same in each. We have written somewhat at length in the Ohilton county case in the discussion of the pertinent principles. We need not here repeat that discussion.

 In this case relator is a resident citizen of Ohilton county and taxpayer on an assessment of property in that county. While the petition alleges that the state tax commissioner assessed the property of the Alabama Power Company in that county at 45 per cent, of its value instead of 60 per cent, of such value as fixed by law, it does not allege that the property of relator was not likewise assessed at 45 per cent, of its value or less, nor that the taxable property in that county owned by others was assessed at a higher rate than 45 per cent, of its value. So that if such discrimination has the effect of showing a personal private right of relator to remove it (Penney v. State, 221 Ala. 230, 128 So. 596), and if this proceeding is the proper method to enforce that right, the petition here does not undertake to make such a claim of discrimination. Relator shows no official duty to the public at large, but only to the state in its sovereign capacity. The general rule is that an individual cannot enforce a right owing to the government; certainly not in any case, unless he sustains an injury peculiar to himself. 38 Corpus Juris, 839, 840, 841; 18 R. C. L. 325; Pryor Motor Co. v. Hartsfield, 207 Ala. 646, 93 So. 524; Rose v. Lampley, 146 Ala. 445, 41 So. 521.

He is, as is Chilton county in its case, merely seeking to force the state, by the unauthorized use of its name, to control an ad-.. ministrative function of one of its officers, in respect to a matter which is the prerogative of the state.

The motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    OF AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY OF COLORADO
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Transition Report on Form
10-K of Amber Resources Company of Colorado for the transition period ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report"):

(1) 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 Delta
Petroleum Corporation.




/s/ Kevin K. Nanke
Kevin K. Nanke
Chief Financial Officer

March 21, 2006


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and shall not, except to the extent required thereby, be deemed filed by
Amber Resources Company of Colorado (the "Company") for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 19-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 19-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 19-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 19-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 19-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 19-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2005107EN.01001201.xml

| 3.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/12

---

Adoption of two reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1)

1

(2005/C 107/05)

On 15 April 2005, the Commission adopted the complete texts of the reference documents on:

| — | best available techniques in smitheries and foundries, |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques in smitheries and foundries,

| — | best available techniques in slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries. |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques in slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries.

These documents are available on the Internet site http://eippcb.jrc.es.

---

(1)  OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.

1

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ning C. Wu, hereby 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 Quarter Report on Form 10-Q of Medical Care Technologies Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (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 Medical Care Technologies Inc.





Dated this 1st day of June, 2011.





/s/ NING C. WUNing C. WuChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Medical Care Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Medical Care Technologies Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





_____________________________________


Created byMorningstar®Document ResearchSM


http://documentresearch.morningstar.com


Source: Medical Care Technologies Inc., 10-Q, November 19, 2010
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50257

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL GARCIA-DE LA TORRE, also known

as Alejandro Lopez, also known as Miguel Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CR-270-ALL-SS

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Miguel Garcia-De La Torre 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. 

Garcia-De La Torre complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior

conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is

unconstitutional. Garcia-De La Torre thus contends that his
No. 03-50257

-2-

sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum terms of

imprisonment and supervised release 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. 

Garcia-De La Torre 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.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 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 Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
Songzai International Holding Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yvonne Zhang, Chief Financial Officer, certify,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, 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, as amended;
  and
 
 (2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 /s/
      Yvonne ZhangYvonne
      ZhangChief
      Financial Officer
 
 Dated: 
November 25, 2009