alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001031002
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-06-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                364,033,478
<RECEIVABLES>                                 7,204,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            371,237,846
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              371,237,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         7,204,368
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 309,278,400
<COMMON>                                     54,755,078
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                371,237,846
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             26,111,803
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              26,111,803
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          26,111,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 26,111,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.3


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated December 29, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-207285) of Smart Trust,
Argus Dividend Growers Total Return Trust, Series 7.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 29, 2015
295 P.2d 256

#### Matter of the Order Concerning JOINT CLASS A SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 370, OWYHEE AND CANYON COUNTIES, State of Idaho, and Common School District No. 61, Canyon County, State of Idaho. Delmer KECK and Mildred Keck, husband and wife, and Fritz Gebert, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JOINT CLASS A SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 370, OWYHEE AND CANYON COUNTIES, State of Idaho, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8204.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

March 20, 1956.

Richard B. Eismann, Homedale, for appellant.

Laurence N. Smith, Caldwell, for respondents.

KEETON, Justice.

This is a companion case to Case No_ 8207 in which a decision was made and filed this date Idaho, 295 P.2d 249.1 The two. cases bear identical titles save and except that this case is an appeal from a judgment, entered in the District Court of Canyon. *465County, and Case No. 8207 is an appeal from a similar judgment entered in the District Court of Owyhee County. The same facts are involved in the two cases and the appeals were consolidated for hearing before this Court.

By virtue of the decision in Case No. 8207 and in accordance therewith, the judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondents.

TAYLOR, C. J., SMITH, J., and BECK-WITH, District Judge, concur.

PORTER, J., dissents.

1

. 77 Idaho 453.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TARIQ SULTAN BROWN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 693 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1614 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1614

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel LUCKY DOG.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 1999

 Mr. Mack (for himself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel LUCKY DOG.

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106 and 12108 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel LUCKY DOG, of St. 
Petersburg, Florida, State of Florida registration number FLZP7569E373.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Jérôme Arnaud, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ILOG; 

 

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 thestatements 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 thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

b. disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 significantrole in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:October 5, 2004 

 

  /s/Jérôme Arnaud
Exhibit 10.76

LOGO

March 3,
2005

Mr. Russ
Mann
39651 Via Cacho
Temecula, CA 92592

RE:
Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement

Dear
Russ:

This
letter sets forth the agreement between you and Peregrine Systems, Inc. (the "Company") to amend the terms of the letter
agreement between you and the Company, dated as of July 12, 2004 (the "Employment Agreement"), as set forth herein (the
"Amendment").

The
Company and the Executive hereby agree that effective as of February 22, 2005:

1.     Section 7(b)
of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



2.     The
first sentence of Section 7(c) of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



3.     Except
as modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.

[signature
page follows]

---



|                                               | Sincerely,                        
|---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                                               | John Mutch
Chief Executive Officer
|Acknowledged and agreed
to as of March 3, 2005 |                                   
|Russ Mann                                      |                                   

2

---



QuickLinks
**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





The
      undersigned, Colin Halpern, Chief Executive Officer, Acting Chief Financial
      Officer and Director of Universal Services Group, Inc. (the "Company"),
      certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company
      for the three month period ended February 1, 1999 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated:
                August 15, 2007/s/
                Colin HalpernColin
                Halpern
              Chief
                  Executive Officer, Acting
                Chief
                  Financial Officer and Director




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.17

                      Supplementary Agreement to Extend the
                        Date of Installment Contribution
                                    (LJ9702)

Party A: Liuzhou OVM Joint Stock Co., Ltd.
Party B: OVM Development Limited (formerly known as "Kolcari 
         Investment Limited")

WHEREAS, both parties entered into a Joint Venture Contract (the "Contract")
dated May 1, 1995, pursuant to which, both parties agreed to establish Liuzhou
OVM Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. ("Liuzhou OVM"), as a joint venture limited
liability company. The Contract also provided that Party B should contribute
cash in an amount of US$2,800,000. As of the end of fiscal year 1995, Party B
had already made the cash contribution of US$2,170,000 under two installments,
with the balance of US$630,000 which remains outstanding as at the date of this
Agreement. Pursuant to an Agreement to Extend Date of Installment Contribution
between the parties dated March 28, 1997, both parties agreed to extend the due
date for the last installment up to December 31, 1997.

NOW, upon friendly negotiation, both parties agreed to further extend the due
date for the last installment contribution of US$630,000 by Party B to June 30,
1998. The extension of the due date for the last cash installment shall not, in
any way, affect the rights that have been enjoyed by Party B under the Contract.


For and on behalf of
Party A:  Liuzhou OVM Joint Stock Co., Ltd.



/s/ Wu Guosen                    
--------------------------       
Wu Guosen                        

For and on behalf of
Party B:  OVM Development Limited


/s/ Ching Lung Po            
--------------------------   
    Ching Lung Po            


Dated:  December 19, 1997
# U ni ted S tat es Cour t of App eals Forthe Seventh Ci rcuit Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Subm i tte d Febr uary 4, 20 10 Deci ded Fe bruar y 1 6, 20 10

B efo re W I LLI AM J
. BAUER, Ci r cu i t J udg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R , Cir cu i t J udg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i t J udg e N o. 09

- 3215 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee ,
v. R O D R I G U E Z D. J O N E S, D e f e ndan t

- Appe l l ant . A pp eal f ro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f or the Central Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. N o. 3: 00-cr-30070 -J E S-1 J eanne E. S cot t, J udg e . O R D E R 

### Th e de fe nd ant- a

pp e lla nt, Rod ri gue z Jone s, so ught a

re du c tio n o f h is s e nte nc e purs ua nt t o 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 591 of the Sente ncingCommi ssio n p o l i cy . That Amendment wa s in effe ct at the time of J ones’ sentenc ing and, under its ter ms, the district c ourt was not authorized to r educethe term of imprisonment alr eady imposed. There fore the ca se should have been dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. W e construethe denial of the re lief sought a s a dis mis sa l f

or wa nt o f s ub je c t matte r j urisd ic tio n a

nd summa ri ly a ff ir m su c h d ism iss a l. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y i n acco rdance w ith Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1
* 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

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51182

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MORENO-CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1115-DB-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Moreno-Contreras 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. 

Moreno-Contreras contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Moreno-Contreras maintains that
No. 03-51182

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

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. 

Moreno-Contreras 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 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, C. A. Rundell, Jr., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A (this Report) of Integrated Security 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my 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

(c)

Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  February 21, 2006

/s/ C. A. RUNDELL, JR.

C. A. Rundell, Jr.,

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Executive and Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1633 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1633

To recognize National Medal of Honor sites in California, Indiana, and 
                            South Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1999

  Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Bingaman) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To recognize National Medal of Honor sites in California, Indiana, and 
                            South Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Medal of Honor Memorial 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration 
        which the Nation bestows.
            (2) The Medal of Honor is the only military decoration 
        given in the name of the Congress of the United States, and 
        therefore on behalf of the people of the United States.
            (3) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society was 
        established by an Act of Congress in 1958, and continues to 
        protect, uphold, and preserve the dignity, honor, and name of 
        the Medal of Honor and of the individual recipients of the 
        Medal of Honor.
            (4) The Congressional Medal of Honor Society is composed 
        solely of recipients of the Medal of Honor.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SITES.

    (a) Recognition.--The following sites to honor recipients of the 
Medal of Honor are hereby recognized as National Medal of Honor sites:
            (1) Riverside, california.--The memorial under construction 
        at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California, to 
        be dedicated on November 5, 1999.
            (2) Indianapolis, indiana.--The memorial at the White River 
        State Park in Indianapolis, Indiana, dedicated on May 28, 1999.
            (3) Mount pleasant, south carolina.--The Congressional 
        Medal of Honor Museum at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant, 
        South Carolina, currently situated on the U.S.S. Yorktown.
    (b) Interpretation.--This section may not be construed to require 
or permit the expenditure of Federal funds (other than expenditures 
already provided for) for any purpose related to the sites recognized 
in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```