alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(a)



 Exhibit 10(a) 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 







 We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of Additional Information, and to the use of our report dated April 13, 2012, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company included
in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-177584) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related Prospectus of Income EliteSM Variable Annuity. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des Moines, Iowa 

April 23, 2012
In Re Walter Edward HARRINGTON, petitioner.

No. 18-7135.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

RAVENWHITE LICENSING LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC. et al, 

Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00423-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before this Court is the Joint Motion for Limited Expedited Venue Discovery and 

Extension of Time to Respond to Home Depot’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss the 

Amended Complaint Based on Improper Venue, filed by Plaintiff RavenWhite Licensing 

LLC and Defendant The Home Depot, Inc. Dkt. No. 42. After consideration, the Court 

GRANTS the Motion. It is ORDERED that Venue Discovery will proceed as follows: 

1. One Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot USA,

Inc., for topics related to venue, with up to seven (7) total hours of deposition testimony;

2. Up to 7 total venue interrogatories to The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot USA,

Inc., responses due 21 days from service;

3. Up to 7 total venue requests for production to The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot

USA, Inc., responses due 21 days from service; and

4. Venue discovery shall be completed by April 5, 2024. Plaintiff’s opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss is extended to and including April 19, 2024; and Home Depot’s

reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss will be due on May 3, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00423-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 451
Aaorney or Party without Aaorney: For Court Use Only 

Marc Fenster (SBN 181067) 

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Telephone No: 310-826-7474 

Aaorney For: Plaintiff ref No. or File No.: 

Insert name of Court, and Jvdicia/ District ond Branch Court: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC 

Defendant: T-Mobile US, Inc., et al 

PROOF OF SERVICE I Hearing Date: I Time: I Dept/Div: Case Number: 

2:23-cv-00377 

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 

2. I served copies of the Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Patent Infringement; Cwil Cover Sheet; Plaintiffs Rule 7.1 

Disclosure Statement; Notice of Designation of Lead Counsel; Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a 

Patent or Trademark 

3. a. Party served: Sprint Corp. 

b. Person served: Debbie Bramlage, authorized to accept for Corporation Service Company, agent for service of process, 

Served under F.R.C.P. Rule 4. 

4. Address where the party was served: 1100 SW Wanamaker Rd., Suite 103, Topeka, KS 66604 

5. / served the party: 

a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive 

process for the party (1) on: Wed, Aug 30 2023 (2) at: 01 :18 PM 

6. Person Who Served Papers: 

a. Ryan Weekley 

b. FIRST LEGAL 

1517 W. Beverly Blvd. 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90026 

c. (213) 250-1111 

d. The Fee for Service was: $207.29 

7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and cofTf!ct.. 

ml PROOF OF 

SERVICE 

08/31/2023 

(Date) 

9477123 

(54243~) 

Case 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP Document 21 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 293
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7938
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL TRACY HARMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-23, CA-00-537) Submitted: July 11, 2003 Decided: August 5, 2003 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Tracy Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Tracy Harmon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harmon has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 (2003). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1697

To provide for the review and classification of physician assistant positions

in the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1999

Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and

Mr. INSLEE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To provide for the review and classification of physician

assistant positions in the Federal Government, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION OF PHYSICIAN

4 ASSISTANT POSITIONS.

5 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

6 ‘‘Physician Assistant Equity Act’’.

7 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
2

•HR 1697 IH

1 (1) the terms ‘‘class’’ and ‘‘class of positions’’

2 have the meanings given such terms under section

3 5102(a)(4) of title 5, United States Code; and

4 (2) the term ‘‘position’’ has the meaning given

5 such term under section 5102(a)(3) of title 5,

6 United States Code.

7 (c) REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION.—Not later than

8 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director

9 of the Office of Personnel Management shall—

10 (1) review the classification of the position of

11 physician assistant, including the factors considered

12 under section 5102(a)(4) (A), (B), and (C) of title

13 5, United States Code;

14 (2) in conducting the review under paragraph

15 (1)—

16 (A) solicit comments from physician assist17 ants and organizations representative of physi18 cian assistants; and

19 (B) give specific consideration to—

20 (i) the private sector qualifications,

21 requirements for practice, compensation,

22 and experience of a physician assistant;

23 and

24 (ii) the educational and practice quali25 fications required for the position of physi-
3

•HR 1697 IH

1 cian assistant, including national accredita2 tion standards and State licensing require3 ments;

4 (3) reclassify the position of physician assistant

5 in a professional class that is different from the

6 class of positions that include any nurse position or

7 medical technician position; and

8 (4) make any appropriate adjustments in per9 sonnel and pay administration consistent with the

10 review and classification conducted under this sub11 section.

Æ
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/31/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      586,188
COMMITMENTS
  76,564   39,178  173,445  319,879  359,563  569,889  572,186   16,299   14,002

CHANGES FROM 12/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     18,389)
   1,277  -10,957   14,846   29,872   42,321   45,995   46,210  -27,606  -27,821

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.1      6.7     29.6     54.6     61.3     97.2     97.6      2.8      2.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      147)
      32       36       57       67       64      135      128
```

----

Updated January 4, 2013
<PAGE>

                                  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 Annual Report of Agree Realty Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth R. Howe,
Chief Financial 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; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairy presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


/S/ KENNETH R. HOWE
-------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Howe
Chief Financial Officer

March 14, 2007
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/09/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       34,362
COMMITMENTS
   4,121    5,229      626   20,394   18,838   25,141   24,693    9,221    9,669

CHANGES FROM 07/02/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        715)
      34      696      -18      332     -262      348      416      367      299

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    12.0     15.2      1.8     59.4     54.8     73.2     71.9     26.8     28.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       57)
      10       11        6       30       21       42       37
```

----

Updated July 13, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

NORMAN CRITTENDON,

 Plaintiff, 

versus

MARK HOLMES, DEPUTY SHERIFF,

 Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 NO. 1:23-cv-00357-MAC-ZJH

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On September 21, 2023, the Court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, 

United States Magistrate Judge, for pretrial management. Pending before the court is Defendant 

Mark Holmes’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) and Plaintiff Norman Crittendon’s Motion for 

Order of a Rule 16 Management Conference (Doc. No. 9). On June 27, 2024, Judge Hawthorn 

issued his Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying Defendant Holmes’

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8), subject to reassertion in light of the testimony given at the 

Spears hearing held on January 24, 2024. Doc. No. 11 at 2. Additionally, Judge Hawthorn 

recommended that Plaintiff Norman Crittendon’s Motion for Order of a Rule 16 Management 

Conference (Doc. No. 9) be denied. Id. 

The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings, and all available 

evidence. The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time 

for doing so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After careful review, the Court finds 

that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Case 1:23-cv-00357-MAC-ZJH Document 14 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 72
2

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 11) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendant Mark Holmes’ Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) and Plaintiff Norman Crittendon’s Motion for Order of a Rule 16 

Management Conference (Doc. No. 9) are DENIED. 

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 12th day of August, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00357-MAC-ZJH Document 14 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 73
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

TOUCHPOINT PROJECTION § 

INNOVATIONS, LLC § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-0233-JRG 

 § 

CDNETWORKS CO., LTD, § 

 § 

Defendant. § 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS 

The Court has considered Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of 

Default and Quash Service of Process (“Motion”). After considering the Motion and any Response 

thereto, the Court has determined that the Motion should, in all things, be GRANTED. Therefore, 

it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the entry of default 

against CDNetworks Co. Ltd. be set aside and that the service of process by Touchpoint Projection 

Innovations, LLC, be quashed. 

Case 2:23-cv-00233-JRG Document 10-3 Filed 06/28/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 104
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2307 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 615
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2307

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 1999

                                Received

                           November 19, 1999

    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                             June 21, 2000

              Reported by Mr. Thompson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the building of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Thomas J. Brown 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building of the United States Postal Service located at 5 Cedar 
Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper, or 
other record of the United States to the building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thomas J. Brown 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 8, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 615

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2307

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the building of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Thomas J. Brown 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 21, 2000

                       Reported without amendment
```
Erwin Keith BELL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6672

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petitions for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50922

Summary Calendar

CATHY PULLEN; BRUCE PULLEN;

FREDERICK ALLAN PULLEN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(EP-95-CV-139)

August 21, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bruce and Cathy Pullen and their major son Frederick Allan (Shields) Pullen

appeal an adverse summary judgment in their Federal Tort Claims Act complaint

against the United States for injury sustained by Frederick Allan while a patient at2

the William Beaumont Army Medical Center during the year 1973. The

government challenged subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the Pullens

failed to file an administrative complaint within two years of the accrual of their

cause of action, that their judicial complaint was not filed within six months of

rejection of that complaint, and that their claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

Th e Pullens counter that the government concealed the true cause of Frederick’s

injury; thus limitations were tolled until the summer of 1991 when they learned of

the concealment. They therefore immediately filed an administrative complaint

followed timely by the instant action.

The court treated the government’s motion to dismiss as a motion for

summary judgment and gran t ed same, finding no basis for the claimed

concealment. The Pullens filed a timely Rule 59(e) motion which challenges the

validity of the unde rlying summary judgment and turns on the court’s resolution

thereof. Our d e novo review of the record reflects no error in the trial court’s ruling

and, on the facts as found, authorities cited, and analysis made by the trial judge in

his Memorandum Opinion and Order signed August 30, 1995 and filed and entered

September 5, 1995, the appealed rulings are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.15









CONSENT OF EXPERT
   March 27, 2015
  Eldorado Gold Corporation
  United States Securities and Exchange Commission
  Ladies and Gentlemen:
  Re: Eldorado Gold Corporation
  I, Stephen Juras, do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical reports entitled (i) the “Technical Report for Kisladag Gold Mine, Turkey”, dated March 15, 2010 and effective January 2010, (ii) the “Technical Report on the Efemcukuru Project” dated September 17, 2007, and effective August 1, 2007, (iii) the “Technical Report for Jinfeng Gold Mine, China” dated January 13, 2012 and effective March 15, 2011 and of extracts from or a summary of  the respective technical reports and of certain mineral resource estimates and other information pertaining to these projects, and the description of all mineral resources, with the exception of Vila Nova and Sapes Projects, of Eldorado Gold Corporation (the “Company”) in the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “AIF”),  and the use of my name in the AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 and any amendments thereto and any Registration Statement on Form S-8 incorporating by reference the Company’s AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F.
   
  By:
/s/ Stephen JurasStephen Juras, P.GeoEldorado Gold CorporationDirector, Technical Services
Nelson ZELEDON, petitioner, v. Shawn HATTON, Warden.

No. 17-8799.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2285 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2285

 To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 
 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 
  design, planning, and construction of the San Antonio Water System 
  Water Recycling Project Phase III for the reclamation and reuse of 
                     water, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 1999

 Mr. Rodriguez (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Bonilla, and Mr. 
  Gonzalez) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 
 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 
  design, planning, and construction of the San Antonio Water System 
  Water Recycling Project Phase III for the reclamation and reuse of 
                     water, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM WATER RECYCLING PROJECT PHASE III.

    (a) In General.--Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1635. SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM WATER RECYCLING PROJECT PHASE 
              III.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
appropriate State and local authorities, is authorized to participate 
in the design, planning, and construction of the San Antonio Water 
System Water Recycling Project Phase III to reclaim and reuse 
wastewater within and outside of the service area of the City of San 
Antonio, Texas.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of a project described in subsection (a).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of that 
Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1634 the 
following:

``Sec. 1635. San Antonio Water System Water Recycling Project Phase 
                            III.''.
                                 <all>
```