alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Subsidiary                                    |   | Jurisdiction                    |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                                          |   |                            |
| CoaLogix                  Inc.                |   | Delaware                        |
|                                          |   |                            |
| CESI-Tech                  Technologies, Inc. |   | Delaware                        |
|                                          |   |                            |
| CESI-SCR,                  Inc.               |   | Delaware                        |
|                                          |   |                            |
| SCR-Tech,                  LLC                |   | North                  Carolina |
|                                          |   |                            |
| DSIT                  Solutions Ltd.          |   | Israel                          |

----
<PAGE> 1


EXHIBIT 23.02


                 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Company's  Registration
Statements of Form S-8 (Nos. 333-24867 and 333-45701) pertaining to the employee
share plans named on the facing sheets  thereof of our reports dated May 1, 1998
with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements of Micro Focus Group Plc
for the year ended  January  31,  1998  included  in its 1998  Annual  Report to
Shareholders and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
a Report of Foreign Issuer (Form 6-K).




/s/ Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young
May 27, 1998
Reading, England
sbfm_ex105.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.5


 


 


 


 





 




 





 











 






 






 




 





 











 






 






 




 





 











 






 






 




 





 











 






 






 




 





 











 






 






 




 





 











 






 






 




 





  











 






 






 




 





2











 






 






 




 





3











 






 





 




 





4











 






 





 


5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated statement of income for the nine months ended August
31, 1998 and the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of August 31, 1998,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such condensed consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                          34,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (674)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         972,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (27,154)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,020,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        993,566
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48,126)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,020,264
<SALES>                                         89,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,097
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   674
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,873
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT


                    Jay J. Shapiro, C.P.A.
                  A Professional Corporation
                     16501 Ventura Blvd.
                         Suite 650
                   Encino, California 91436
                     Tel: (818) 990-4204
                     Fax: (818) 990-4944

July 6, 2000


We consent to the inclusion in Form 10-K of International
Thermal Packaging, Inc. of our report, dated February 1, 2000,
except for Note 10, as to which the date is July 5, 2000, on the
January 31, 1999 and January 31, 1998, financial statements of
International Thermal Packaging, Inc.


/s/ Jay J. Shapiro CPA P.C.


Jay J. Shapiro, C.P.A.
a professional corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CNB
HOLDINGS, INC. UNAUDITED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,305,273
<SECURITIES>                                 9,027,107
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,179,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                   303,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,332,380
<PP&E>                                         470,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,014,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,820,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,235,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,771,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,074,486
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,036,930
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               952,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                81,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             342,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (156,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (156,763)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (156,763)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50107

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

DENNIS ARMANDO ROSALES-ALVARADO, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:16-CR-211-1 

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Armando Rosales-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into 

the United States and was sentenced above the advisory guidelines range to 

52 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In his only 

argument on appeal, he asserts that because the indictment did not allege that 

he had a prior felony conviction, his sentence exceeded the two-year statutory 

maximum sentence set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and violated his due process 

 

* 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

September 29, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50107 Document: 00514176676 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2017
No. 17-50107

2 

rights. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. 

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but states that he seeks to preserve it for 

possible future review because recent decisions indicate that the Supreme 

Court may reconsider the issue. See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 

(2013).

 The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. Summary 

affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the position of one of the 

parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1969).

As Rosales-Alvarado concedes, his due process argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions in Apprendi v. 

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne did not overrule AlmendarezTorres. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); 

United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-50107 Document: 00514176676 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2017
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Stephen NagelChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3705]



[[Page 8650]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. CP95-193-000]


K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

February 9, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 2, 1994, K N Interstate Gas 
Transmission Co. (K N Interstate), P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 
80228-8304, filed in Docket No. CP95-193-000 a request pursuant to 
Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to 
construct and operate three new natural gas delivery points for K N 
Energy, Inc. (K N) under K N Interstate's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP83-140-000, et al., pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    K N Interstate proposes to construct and operate three new delivery 
taps located in Clay, Dawes and Hamilton Counties, Nebraska for use 
under an existing transportation agreement between K N Interstate and K 
N. K N Interstate states that it would deliver approximately 4 Mcf on a 
peak day and 5,040 annually through the Clay tap, and 5,880 Mcf on a 
peak day and 1,800,000 Mcf annually through the Hamilton tap. K N 
Interstate estimates that the Dawes tap would cost $400, the Clay tap 
would cost $1,150 and the Hamilton tap would cost $145,000. K N 
Interstate asserts that the addition of the proposed delivery points 
would not have any adverse impact on its existing customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If not protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3705 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3394 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3394

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
               emergency use authorization transparency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 2021

 Ms. Hassan (for herself, Mr. Braun, and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
               emergency use authorization transparency.

    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 ``Emergency Use Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING EUA TRANSPARENCY.

    Section 564(h)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360bbb-3(h)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``on the internet website of the Food and 
        Drug Administration and'' after ``promptly publish''; and
            (2) by striking ``application under section 505(i) 512(j), 
        or 520(g), even if such summary may indirectly reveal the 
        existence of such application'' and inserting ``application, 
        request, or submission under this section or section 505(b), 
        505(i), 505(j), 512(b), 512(j), 512(n), 515, 510(k), 513(f)(2), 
        520m(g), 520(m), 571, or 572 of this Act, or section 351(a) or 
        351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, even if such summary 
        may reveal the existence of such an application, request, or 
        submission, or data contained in such application, request, or 
        submission''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, GregoryA.C. Yull, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Intertape Polymer Group 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 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 annual report; 

4. TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] and internal control over financial reporting [as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)] 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 its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. Designed such internal control over financingreporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theperiod covered by this 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 control over financial reporting, to theCompany’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 over financial reportingwhich 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 significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2015
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.56% 1.93% -1.44% -2.41%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: For OASI beneficiaries becoming eligible for benefits in 2019 and later, multiply the 

PIA factors by the ratio of life expectancy at 67 for 2014 to the life expectancy at age 67 for the 4th year 

prior to the year of benefit eligibility. Unisex life expectancies, based on period life tables, would be used 

as projected by SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary. Disability benefits are not affected by the proposal. 

Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportional 

reduction in benefits based on the worker's years of disability.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4050 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate a provision 

under the Medicare Advantage program that inadvertently penalizes 

Medicare Advantage plans for providing high quality care to Medicare 

beneficiaries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2022 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. KING, Ms. SMITH, and Mr. SCOTT of South 

Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

a provision under the Medicare Advantage program that 

inadvertently penalizes Medicare Advantage plans for 

providing high quality care to Medicare beneficiaries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Advantage 

5 Quality Payment Relief Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4050 IS

1 SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM QUALITY BONUS PENALTY IN CAL2 CULATION OF THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 

3 BLENDED BENCHMARK CAP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1853(n)(4) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(n)(4)) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘determined taking into account’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘determined without regard to’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning on or 

10 after January 1, 2023. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### JONAH HENDERSON and His Wife, ETHEL HENDERSON, v. CARL R. STUART, Trustee, et al.

(Filed 25 February, 1942.)

Husband and AVile § 12d—

The husband has the right, with the consent of the owner and holder of notes secured by deed of trust on the property, to use the proceeds of a fire insurance policy to pay a separate obligation of his, notwithstanding that the property was held by him and his wife by entireties and the policy had a mortgage clause in favor of the trustee.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Qwyn, J.,*at September Term, 1941, of MadisoN.

*38Civil action for damages, alleging tbe foreclosure of- a deed of trust after tbe indebtedness secured thereby bad been paid. Plaintiffs contend that tbe proceeds from a certain fire insurance policy, to which policy a mortgage clause in favor of trustee was attached, were sufficient to pay said indebtedness, and that the owner and holder of the secured notes wrongfully permitted the coplaintiff, Jonah Henderson, to divert a portion of said funds to the payment of a personal debt to the Citizens Bank of Marshall, which bank was also by assignment the owner and holder of the secured notes. The land sold under the deed of trust had been conveyed to plaintiffs as tenants by the entirety.

The jury, upon a proper issue, found that the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust had not been paid at the time of foreclosure.

From judgment on verdict plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court and assign error.

*James E. Rector for plaintiffs.*

*J. C. Ramsey, Roberts & Batey and John H. McElroy for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

A careful perusal of the record and exceptions filed in this case do not show any reversible error. The obligation of the plaintiffs was joint and several and the coplaintiff, Jonah Henderson, had the right, with the consent and approval of the owner and holder of the secured notes, to divert a portion of the proceeds received from the fire insurance company to the payment of other indebtedness. *Turlington v. Lucas,*186 N. C., 283, 119 S. E., 366; *Winchester-Simmons Co. v. Cutler,*194 N. C., 698, 140 S. E., 622.

In the judgment of the court below we find

No error.