alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
245 Summer Street

Fidelity® Investments 

Boston, MA 02210

September 30, 2016

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Attention: File Room

| RE:

Fidelity Advisor Series VII (the trust): File Nos. 002-67004 and 811-03010 

Fidelity Advisor Biotechnology FundFidelity Advisor Communications Equipment FundFidelity Advisor Consumer Discretionary FundFidelity Advisor Electronics FundFidelity Advisor Energy FundFidelity Advisor Financial Services FundFidelity Advisor Health Care FundFidelity Advisor Industrials FundFidelity Advisor Real Estate FundFidelity Advisor Technology FundFidelity Advisor Utilities Fund (the fund(s))

________________________________________________________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Transmitted herewith pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933 is certification that the Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information with respect to the above referenced funds do not differ from those filed in the most recent post-effective amendment, which was filed electronically.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Marc Bryant

Marc Bryant

Secretary of the Trust |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Lezmond C. MITCHELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8725.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10397

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN LUIS PADILLA-PEREZ, also known as Alejandro 

Padilla-Perez, also known as Victor Manuel Padilla-Perez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-93-ALL

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Luis Padilla-Perez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedStates, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision

and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Priscilla Ann ELLIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6493.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of Shakima S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Simone M., Respondent, Shaun S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Joseph T.M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Simone M., Respondent, Shaun S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[874 NYS2d 819]—

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Shaun S. appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated September 18, 2007, as relieved his attorney from representing him, based upon his failure to appear in the matter for more than six months.

*956Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

This appeal has been rendered academic inasmuch as, subsequent to the court’s order relieving counsel, the matter proceeded to a dispositional hearing, an order of disposition was entered, and the father is not appealing from that order of disposition. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.
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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Larry Kristof, Chief Executive Officer 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





By:/s/
Larry Kristof


Larry
Kristof


President and Chief
Executive Officer


January 14,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FORM 10-Q AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           19,003,072
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          36,468,603
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                       4,879
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>             5,816,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  42,290,414
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                  0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          152,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                152,983
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                          0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        24,671,900
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>              400,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>              400,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                   0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                  0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>        17,465,531
<NET-ASSETS>                    42,137,431
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                        0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                  124,297
<OTHER-INCOME>                           0
<EXPENSES-NET>                   1,107,235
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>           (982,938)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>         6,462,479
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        1,052,025
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            6,531,566
<EQUALIZATION>                           0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>           (1,244,602)
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                  0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>              0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                      0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>           5,286,964
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              206,470
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   7,031
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                  1,110,935
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            39,493,949
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                   51
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         14
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                  0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     65
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                        2.8
<FN>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is not
allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not taxable.
</FN>

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. LAURENCE ADLAI NEISH, Respondent

PER CURIAM: : : : : : : : No. 2074 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 31 DB 2013 Attorney Registration No. 64819 (Allegheny County)
O R D E R

AND NOW, this this 17th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated May 29, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that Laurence Adlai Neish is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, the suspension is stayed in its entirety and respondent is placed on probation fora period ofsix months,subjectto the following conditions:

1. Respondentshall not commitany violations ofthe Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement;and

2. Upon completion of the period of probation, respondent shall submita sworn certification to the Board that he has complied with the above condition. It is further ordered that the expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution ofthis matterare to be paid by the respondent.
Opinion issued August 20 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00405
- CV

——————————— IN RE SARAH HADEN , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Sarah Haden, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s March 22, 2019 order granting r econsideration, vacating its new

trial order, and reinstating its prior m odification o rder in the underlying suit affecting the par ent

- child relationship

. 1 We deny the petition.

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of H.G. and L.G., Children , cause number 2012

– 59856, pending in the 311th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Germaine Tanner presiding.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman, and Landau

.
Roscoe MARTIN, petitioner, v. Thomas MACKIE, Warden.

No. 16-5761.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Victor R. ZIEGLER, Sr., petitioner, v. Sally JEWELL, Secretary of the Interior.

No. 16-342.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1470 

Honoring the life, achievements, and distinguished career of Chief Justice 

William S. Richardson. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2010 

Mr. DJOU (for himself and Ms. HIRONO) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life, achievements, and distinguished career 

of Chief Justice William S. Richardson. 

Whereas William S. Richardson was born on December 22, 

1919, and spent most of his childhood in Palama and 

Kaimuki; 

Whereas William S. Richardson was born to a working class 

family of Hawaiian, Chinese, and Caucasian ancestry; 

Whereas William S. Richardson served as a platoon leader in 

the United States Army during World War II and was 

later inducted into the Infantry Officer Candidate School 

Hall of Fame; 

Whereas William S. Richardson served as Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii from 1962–1966; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1470 IH 

Whereas William S. Richardson led the Hawaii Democratic 

Party from 1956–1962; 

Whereas William S. Richardson served as the Chief Justice 

of the Hawaii Supreme Court from 1966–1982; 

Whereas the William S. Richardson School of Law honors his 

leadership by opening educational and professional avenues for the Islands’ most disadvantaged groups; 

Whereas William S. Richardson upheld traditional Hawaiian 

laws and expanded public rights for Native Hawaiians 

and all people in Hawaii; 

Whereas as William S. Richardson was awarded the Spirit of 

Excellence Award from the American Bar Association; 

and 

Whereas, on June 21, 2010, at the age of 90, William S. 

Richardson passed away in Honolulu, Hawaii: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors the life, achievements, and distin3 guished career of Chief Justice William S. Richard4 son; 

5 (2) emphasizes that, among his judicial accom6 plishments, Chief Justice William S. Richardson 

7 changed the face of higher education in Hawaii by 

8 opening avenues for the Islands’ most disadvantaged 

9 groups and by building a more equitable society for 

10 the people of Hawaii; and 

11 (3) recognizes the William S. Richardson School 

12 of Law, the educational institution that bears his 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1470 IH 

1 name, as a significant part of the legacy of William 

2 S. Richardson. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
LaShawn PETTUS-BROWN, petitioner, v. Jeff LISATH, Warden.

No. 16-277.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Bill Page Toyota, Inc. v. Krishan K. Sahgal, a/k/a Krishon K. Sahgal

January 18, 1991

Case No. (Law) 99486

By JUDGE RICHARD J. JAMBORSKY

The matter is before the Court on the motion of Krishan K. Sahgal (defendant) for leave to amend his answer and counterclaim to include a cause of action for specific performance. Bill Page Toyota, Inc. (plaintiff) objects to the defendant’s motion. After hearing argument on December 7, 1990, the Court took the matter under advisement and now denies the defendant’s motion.

The plaintiff filed a Warrant In Debt against the defendant which sought recovery of the unpaid balance on a contract for the purchase of a 1990 Toyota Corolla in the General District Court of Fairfax County. The defendant subsequently filed his answer and counterclaim on June 8, 1990. The defendant’s counterclaim did not seek specific performance of the contract but did ask for damages in the amount of $5,000.00. The Honorable James Waters awarded judgment in the amount of $4,000.00 to the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim. The defendant filed an appeal to this Court and now seeks to amend his answer and counter-claim to include a cause of action for specific performance.

The defendant contracted with the plaintiff to purchase a 1990 Corolla for $12,729.94. The defendant cannot plausibly argue that the General District Court would have had *63jurisdiction to order the specific performance of the contract by the plaintiff. *See*Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-77 (Supp. 1990). On appeal from the General District Court, the jurisdiction of this Court is derivative with respect to both amount and subject matter. *Stacy v.*Mullins, 185 Va. 837, 840-44, 40 S.E.2d 265, 266-68 (1946); *Addison v. Salyer,*185 Va. 644, 651-52, 40 S.E.2d 260, 264 (1946). Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to allow the defendant to amend his answer and counterclaim to include a cause of action for specific performance. Additionally, the court believes that the defendant’s amendment to the counterclaim is not the type of amendment sanctioned under Section 16.1-114.1 of the Code of Virginia. Va. Code Ann. Section 16.1-114.1 (1988). *See also, National Surety Corp.*v. *Commonwealth Ford, Inc.,*11 Va. Cir. 311, 313 (1965).

The defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer and counterclaim to include a cause of action for specific performance is denied.
0.3395918
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 Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.Jeffrey Meder, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
                 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
                 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Date: May 15, 2006 /s/   J. Jeffrey Meder J. Jeffrey Meder       President and Chief Executive Officer
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





I, Con Buckley, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. for the period ended February 28, 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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd.




Dated: April 19, 2010





/s/ Con BuckleyCon BuckleyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)Mantra Venture Group Ltd.








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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd. and will be retained by Mantra Venture
Group Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Ivan Bennett WILLIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6120.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory A. Wells, Chief Financial
Officer of NTS Capital Corporation, the general partner of NTS-Properties Associates V, the
general partner of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland limited partnership (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|1. |  | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the period ended June
               30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
               Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 16, 2004

/s/ Gregory A. Wells

---

Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates V,
General Partner of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland limited partnership

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be
retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 3.1.1



                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                               IEC FUNDING CORP.

                                    * * * *

                                January 30, 1998

     IEC FUNDING CORP., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"),
does hereby certify as follows:

          FIRST: That the Board of Directors of said corporation, by the
     unanimous written consent of its members, filed with the minutes of the
     Board, adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable the following
     amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation:

          RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of IEC Funding Corp.
     be amended by changing Article First thereof so that, as amended, said
     Article shall be and read as follows:

                                 ARTICLE FIRST

     The Name of the Corporation is ESI Tractebel Funding Corp. (the
"Corporation").

     SECOND: That in lieu of a meeting and vote of stockholders, the
stockholders have given written consent to said amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware by the written consent of a majority of the holders of
common stock of the Corporation. 


                [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]

                                       2
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation to be signed as of the date first
above written by its Vice President, who hereby affirms and acknowledges, under
the penalty of perjury, that this certificate is the act and deed of the
Corporation and that the facts stated herein are true.

                                       IEC FUNDING CORP.


                                       By: /s/ Glenn E. Smith
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Name:  Glenn E. Smith
                                           Title: Vice President



                  [Signature page to Certificate of Amendment
              of Certificate of Incorporation of IEC Funding Corp.]
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00470

- CV

Robert B. Martinez
v. Emilia Castillo Martinez

On Appeal from the 150th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021CI03825

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having conside red this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. No costs are assessed
, due to appellant ’ s

in ability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certif ied below for o bservance.
February 2, 2023