alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 99.19
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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.
  /s/ Ian W. TelferIan W. TelferPresident and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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.
  /s/ Peter BarnesPeter BarnesExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7106** 

JOHN HENRY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 4:13

- cv
- 01868

- MGL )

Submitted : October 16 , 2014 Decided: October 22 , 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are no t binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate ju dge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2 254 (2012) petition as barred by the
statute of limitations

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of
the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal,
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on June 17, 2014 . Th e notic e of appeal was filed on July 21 ,
2014

. * Because Henry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal and deny as moot Henry ’s motion for a
certificate of appealability . We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (19 88).3 in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the Matter of O.M.

No. COA15-692.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STARK, et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 313PA10-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 3, 2011.

K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, for Stark, Cheyenne Saleena et al.

Kirk G. Warner, Raleigh, for Ford Motor Company.

Robert L. Wise, for Ford Motor Company.

Christopher R. Kiger, Raleigh.

Sandra Giannone Ezell.

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh.

Adam Charnes, Winston-Salem, for Ford Motor Company.

Richard J. Keshian, Winston-Salem.

Richard D. Dietz, Raleigh.

Stephen J. Darmody, for National Association of Manufacturers, et al.

Andrew H. Erteschik, Raleigh, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attorneys and NC Chamber.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh, for Product Liability Advisory Council.

William F. Womble, Winston-Salem, for Product Liability Advisory Council.

James R. Morgan, Jr., Winston-Salem.

John Edward Pueschel, Winston-Salem.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of August 2010 by Product Liability Advisory Council for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed without prejudice to refile pursuant to 28(i). By order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2011."
NC ASS'N OF EDUCATORS, INC., et al. v. STATE of NC.

No. 228A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 18, 2015.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State of North Carolina.

Burton Craige, Raleigh, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Philip A. Hostak, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for The State of North Carolina.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

J. Michael McGuinness, Elizabethtown, for Southern States Police Benevolent Association, et al.

Hardy Lewis, Raleigh, for State Employees Association of North Carolina, Inc.

Michael L. Carpenter, Gastonia, for N.C. Retired Governmental Employees' Association.

Marcus R. Carpenter, for N.C. Retired Government Employees' Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of December 2015 by NC Retired Governmental Employees Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of December 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,559,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,599,833
<PP&E>                                       8,880,362
<DEPRECIATION>                               (108,757)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,371,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          548,255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,823,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,371,438
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               725,573
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  304,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                421,243
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            421,243
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   421,243
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    25.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    25.93
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

249 

CAF 14-01925 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF SHYANA C. BROUGHTON, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

LARRY P. LIVINGSTON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (REGINA A. DELVECCHIO OF COUNSEL),

FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

AUDREY ROSE HERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Mary G.

Carney, J.), entered August 18, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order granted the amended petition of

petitioner seeking modification of a prior court order of custody and

access. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Family Court.

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
STATE v. McLEAN.

No. COA08-479.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (07CRS31811).

Case reported without published opinion. No trial error; remand for resentencing.
NO. 07-04-0026-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MARCH 4, 2004

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.L.D., A CHILD

_________________________________

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 66,038-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Dwayne Lynn Dale filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 26, 2004.

No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our

mandate will issue forthwith. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. All costs are assessed to appellant.

 

James T. Campbell

 Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,136
<SECURITIES>                                    21,577
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                       827
<INVENTORY>                                      5,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,264
<PP&E>                                           8,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,256
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,533
<SALES>                                         57,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,439
<CGS>                                           20,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,018
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,967
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,659
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,659
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01041201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/412 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/412

---

(2004/C 88 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Reduced VAT for hotels, restaurants and cafés in the European Union

Subject:

At present, hotel and catering services are included in Annex H to the Sixth VAT Directive.

On the basis of that Directive, 12 of the 15 Member States have decided to apply a VAT rate below 15 % for this category of services, but it is clear that the disparity in the rates applicable in the various countries is leading to unequal treatment which may distort competition in the industry, which is highly sensitive to any kind of tax-related question.

Will the Commission take action, on the basis of its power of initiative, with a view to suggesting to the Member States that they take account of the accumulation of circumstances which affect the hotel sector so that the VAT rate applicable to the sector is as low as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

(5 September 2003)

In its 2000 communication the Commission set out a strategy to improve the operation of the value-added tax (VAT) system in the context of the internal market (1).

1

No changes in the level of VAT rates are envisaged during the implementation of this strategy. Mindful of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission does not wish to interfere with the Member States' fiscal competence any more than is necessary for the smooth operation of the internal market, especially as regards the VAT rates the Member States wish to set.

However, it is the role of the Commission to propose to the Council any rules necessary for the smoother operation of the internal market. The Commission has therefore chosen to focus on the disparities in present system of rates with a view to making an important step in this direction. More equal treatment must be ensured in all the Member States, including the new members, and a stop put to the distortions created by the fact that some may apply reduced rates for certain sectors that are elsewhere prohibited.

Accordingly, on 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates (2). Catering services have now been added to hotel services on the new list of goods and services eligible for the reduced rate. In any event, the reduced rates remain entirely optional and it is therefore up to the Member States to decide on the sectors where they wish to apply reduced rates.

2

The Council now has to decide unanimously on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 348 final.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 397 final.

2

---
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-50662

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO CERINO-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-98-CR-289-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________

December 31, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Arturo Cerino-Ramirez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cerino-Ramirez was convicted

on a guilty plea of being an alien who was unlawfully in the United

States after being excluded, deported, and removed; he has not

filed a response. 

Cerino-Ramirez directed his counsel to appeal only his

sentence. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion to
- 2 -

withdraw is GRANTED; counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein; and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00620-CV

Andrew CONTRERAS and Martha Ann Contreras,

Appellants

v.

DREAM HOME RENOVATORS, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CV-06354

Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On September 12, 2019, Appellants filed an opposed motion to review the supersedeas 

bond amount and an emergency motion to stay execution of a final judgment in a detainer case. 

No clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal. The documents provided by Appellants 

show that the trial court signed a final judgment on August 30, 2019, which set the supersedeas 

bond amount at $12,000.00, and on September 11, 2019, Appellants filed an affidavit from 

Andrew Contreras stating that he cannot find a surety as required and he does not have cash to 

post in lieu of a bond.

“A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending 

appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas 

bond in an amount set by the county court.” TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007; accord Marshall 

v. Housing. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. 2006). 

As a prerequisite to a stay, Appellants were required to post a bond for $12,000.00 not 

later than September 9, 2019. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.07; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786.

Appellants have not provided any evidence to show that they posted a $12,000.00 bond 

on or before September 9, 2019. Appellants’ emergency motion to stay execution is DENIED. 

See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.07; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786.
Although we may review a trial court’s ruling on the amount of a supersedeas bond, see

TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a), we have no record before us of a hearing on any Appellants’ motion to 

reduce the amount of the bond to avoid substantial economic harm to Appellants, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 24.2(b). Appellants’ motion to review the amount of the supersedeas bond is DENIED. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
wiei_ex1013.htm



EXHIBIT 10.13







 




  





1











  






 






 




  





2











  








 






 




  





3











  








 






 




  





4











  








 






 


5
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sekou Smith, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 189]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered May 7, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree (two counts) and sodomy in the first degree (four counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of two counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1], [3]) and four counts of sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50 [1], [3]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statement to the police in which he admitted that he committed the crimes charged herein. The court was entitled to credit the testimony of the police witnesses, and the court’s findings of fact are entitled to great deference (see *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Defendant further contends that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the court erred with respect to numerous evidentiary rulings. Defendant failed to object to most of the evidentiary rulings at issue and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review with respect to those rulings *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our power to review his contention with respect to those rulings as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We conclude that defendant was not *1341deprived of a fair trial by the allegedly erroneous rulings to which he objected. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick J. Heinig, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 200]

Appeal from a judgment of the Herkimer County Court (Patrick L. Kirk, J.), rendered September 30, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Heinig*(21 AD3d 1297 [2005]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 2004N-0554]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Robbins, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of March 29, 2005 (70 FR 15863), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under  44 U.S.C. 3507.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0549.   The approval expires on June 30, 2008.   A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets*.                

Dated: September 7, 2005.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-18165 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S