alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Thomas J. Diemer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 12, 2010



| |  |                       |  |                                      |  | 
| |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ |  | 
| |  | /s/  Thomas J.
Diemer |  |                                     
| |  | Name:                 |  | Thomas J. Diemer                     |  | 
| |  | Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6387
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN FRANCIS, a/k/a Posse, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-93-144, CA-96-2864) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Francis , Nos. CR-93-144; CA-96-2864 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 12283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5546]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Sunshine 
Act Meetings
[[Page 12283]] 




FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board; Special Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming special meeting 
of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board) concerning the FCS 
Building Association.

DATE AND TIME: The special meeting of the Board concerning the FCS 
Building Association will be held March 7, 1995 at the offices of the 
Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, immediately following 
the FCA Board's special meeting at 11:00 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Floyd Fithian, Acting Secretary to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to 
the public (limited space available). In order to increase the 
accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should 
make arrangements in advance. The matter to be considered at the 
meeting is:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

B. Reports

1. FCSBA Quarterly Report

    Dated: March 1, 1995.
Floyd Fithian,

Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 95-5546 Filed 3-2-95; 2:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
Fifth Season International Inc.: Exhibit 10.7 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.7

Rent & Operation Contract

Party A: Wuxi Nankai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd


Party B: Wuxi the Fifth Season Investment Management
Co., Ltd. 

	General Information of the Rented Room 



	Rent Purpose: business operation
  
	Location: Room 205-2F, 202-1F, 202-2F, 202-3F, Nanchan Temple Zijin
  Square, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province
  
	Area: 9241.12 sq.m. 




	Property Right 



	Party A promises to own the operation right to the rented room, and Party
  A is totally entitled to rent the room. Party A would settle the problem if
  there is any third party claims to the property right to the rented room.





	Term, Rental and Other Fees of Tenancy 



	Term of Tenancy: from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013, both Party A
  and Party B shall have the right to terminate this agreement during the last
  two years of the tenancy.
  
	Free Rental Term: from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010
  
	Rental: RMB 5,000,000 yuan per year (rental excluding from fees on water,
  electric, gas, communication, property management and government levy)
  
	Annual Rental will rise to RMB 9,700,000 yuan if Party B fails to: a. open
  the department store on September 28, 2010 with a open rate of 80% in the
  opening day and no less than 95% for the ground floor; or b. maintain the
  opening rate of 95% during the lease period; or c. obey the business time from
  10 a.m. to 9 p.m..
  
	Way of Payment: pay twice per year 




Sublease Clause 


	80% area of the leased building can be subleased to the third party





Breach of the Contract 


	When any Party of the contract breaches the contract and leads the
  performance of the contract unavailable, the breach party shall bear the
  responsibility of breach of the contract and pay the indemnities to the
  observed party and pay the liquidated damages of 50% of the remained un-paid
  rental. 




	Headlines of the articles omitted 



	Decoration & Fitment
  
	Sales & Property Management 
	Modification and Termination of Contract
	
Miscellaneous






Party A: Wuxi Nankai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Zhezhang Miu 

By: /seal/ Wuxi Nankai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. 

       /s/ Zhenbang Miu 

Date: July 28, 2009 

Party B: Hangzhou the Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management
Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Kai Wu 

By: /seal/ Hangzhou the Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment
Management Co., Ltd. 

       /s/ Kai Wu 

Date: July 28, 2009
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Apply 4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $300,000 in 2017, with the $300,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017.  Give no benefit credit for additional earnings in AIME for benefit computation. |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified May 14, 2010 |
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00076

- CV

In the Interest of D.A., a child §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

o f Tarrant County (323

- 97474J

- 12 )

July 31, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
#### MRS. R. A. HALL v. WILLIE G. BOYKIN et al.

(Filed 17 March, 1937.)

Bills and Notes § 27 — Plaintiff must show ownership of note sued on, and directed verdict for her without introduction of evidence by her is error.

In an action on a note and to foreclose mortgage security plaintiff alleged that she was the owner of the note executed by one defendant to the other. The payee named in the note denied the allegation of ownership, and, upon the court’s erroneous ruling that the burden was on him, proffered evidence, which was excluded, that he was the owner of the note. The court thereupon directed a verdict for plaintiff without the introduction of evidence by her. *Seld:*Defendant’s exception to the directed verdict is well taken.

Appeal by defendant J. W. Boyett from *Cranmer, J.,*at September Term, 1936, of JohNstoN.

Civil action to recover on promissory note and to foreclose mortgage security.

Plaintiff alleges tbat sbe is tbe owner and bolder of a note for $552.50, executed by "Willie G. Boykin to J. W. Boyette on 1 December, 1929, payable 1 January, 1931, and secured by mortgage, wbicb allegation is denied in tbe answer of J. W. Boyette.

Wben tbe pleadings were read, tbe court ruled tbat tbe burden of proof was on tbe defendant; whereupon, tbe defendant Boyette proffered testimony to tbe effect tbat be was tbe owner of tbe “Boykin note and mortgage described in tbe pleadings,” wbicb was excluded. Exception.

Erom a directed verdict and judgment for plaintiff, tbe defendant Boyette appeals, assigning errors.

*Abell & Shepard for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Parktr & Lee for defendant Boyette, appellant.*

Pee Oubiam.

The exception to the directed verdict is well taken. Plaintiff offered no evidence under the court’s ruling, which was erroneous, and the verdict is unsupported by the record. *Hayes v. Green,*187 N. C., 776, 123 S. E., 7; *Bank v. School Committee,*121 N. C., 107, 28 S. E., 134.

New trial.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor
Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Anna E. Gluskin, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the
"Company"), and Rose C. Perri, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2003, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at
the end of the period covered by the Report.

DATE: December 15, 2003             By: /s/ Anna E. Gluskin
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Anna E. Gluskin, Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)



DATE: December 15, 2003             By: /s/ Rose C. Perri
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Rose C. Perri, Chief Operating Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### STATE v. SIBBALD SMITH.

(Filed 2 January, 1929.)

1. Criminal Law — Judgment—Suspended Judgments — Opportunity to Be Heard.

Where the defendant has been convicted of slandering a virtuous woman and judgment has been suspended upon certain conditions, before the suspended judgment can be put into execution for the failure of defendant to perform the conditions thereof he must be given an opportunity to be heard, and on appeal the judge should find the facts upon which he acted in putting the judgment into effect.

2. Criminal law — Judgment—Cost Not a Part of Punishment.

The taxing the cost in a criminal action is not a part of the punishment for the offense committed, and is regulated by statute. C. S., 1268, 1270.

CeimiNal action, before *Moore., J.,*at August Term, 1928, of Swain.

At the March Term, 1927, of the Superior Court of Swain County the defendant was convicted of slander of an innocent and virtuous woman, and the following judgment entered: “It is the judgment of the court that the defendant be confined in the common jail of Swain County for a period of four months and pay the costs of this action. Capias on this sentence not to issue on the express condition that he will not violate any of the laws of the State, and particularly not to talk about young girls in any way except complimentary remarks, and on the further condition that he be of good behavior toward all citizens of North Carolina and engage in some constant occupation regularly, and he is allowed until the first day of next term of Swain County Superior Court in which to pay the cost.”

At the August Term, 1928, the judge issued a capias for defendant and entered the following judgment: “This cause coming on to be heard, and it appearing to the court that the defendant has failed to comply with former judgment in this case in that he failed to pay the costs as required in the judgment; It is therefore ordered that the judgment be enforced and the defendant be sent to jail for four months to carry out said judgment.”

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Moody <& Moody, W. G. Hall and McKinley Edwards for defendant.*

Brogden, J.

It does not appear from the record that the defendant was offered an opportunity in open court to be heard upon the question as to whether he had violated the conditions upon which the original *439judgment was suspended. Neither is there evidence or finding of fact to the effect that any of said conditions had been violated.

The exception of the defendant to the judgment appealed from is sustained. *S. v. Hardin,*183 N. C., 815, 112 S. E., 593; *S. v. Phillips,*185 N. C., 614, 115 S. E., 893; *S. v. Gooding,*194 N. C., 271, 139 S. E., 436.

Costs constitute no part of the punishment of the defendant. *S. v. Crook,*115 N. C., 760, 20 S. E., 513.

Liability for costs in criminal cases is regulated by 0. S., 1268-12Y0. These sections provide in substance that a defendant upon failing to pay costs may be imprisoned “until the costs shall be paid, or until he shall otherwise be discharged according to law.”

Error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6326]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health Genome Research Review Committee; 
Notice of Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the meeting of the 
Genome Research Review Committee, National Center for Human Genome 
Research, March 14, 1995, Embassy Suites Hotel, Chevy Chase Pavilion, 
Washington, D.C. which was published in the Federal Register on March 
3, 1995 (60 FR 11975).
    The meeting was cancelled due to complications of other commitments 
of several members of the committee and will be rescheduled at a later 
date.

    Dated: March 9, 1995.
Margery G. Grubb,
Senior Committee Management Specialist, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-6326 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### STATE v. WILLIE CHERRY.

(Filed 17 September, 1947.)

Criminal Law § 80b (4)—

Where defendant gives notice of appeal but fails to make out or serve case on appeal within the time allowed or take any action toward perfecting the appeal, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, but where defendant has been convicted of a capital felony this will be done only after an inspection of the record proper fails to disclose error.

Appeal from *Burgwyn, Special Judge,*at Special Term, Juné, 1947, of NORTHAMPTON.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*E. N. Riddle for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted-of burglary in the first degree. Sentence of death by asphyxiation was imposed. Defendant gave notice of appeal. No'case on appeal was served within the time allowed by the court below, and the attorney for the defendant has notified this Court that the appeal will not be perfected.

The Attorney-General moves to docket and dismiss the appeal. This motion must be-allowed, but, according to the usual rule of the Court in capital cases, we have examined the record to see if any error appears. We find no error therein. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455.

Judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors
Aethlon Medical, Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
333-127911 and 333-114017 and 333-49896) of our report, dated June 27, 2006
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Aethlon Medical, Inc. for the
year ended March 31, 2006.


                                      /s/ Squar, Milner, Reehl & Williamson, LLP
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Squar, Milner, Reehl & Williamson, LLP


Newport Beach, California
June 29, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5695]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Boppin Basin EIS; Kootenai National Forest; Lincoln County, 
Montana; Cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Environmental impact statement cancellation notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Three Rivers Ranger District, 
Kootenai National Forest is withdrawing its plan to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Boppin Basin project. Project 
proposals within this area will be incorporated into the Fry-Zim 
Environmental Impact Statement for fire and insect mortality recovery.
    The Notice of Intent, published in the Federal Register of January 
14, 1994 is hereby rescinded (FR document is FR 94-916 Filed 1-13-94).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Zearfoss. Fry-Zim EIS Team 
Leader, Three Rivers Ranger District (406) 295-4693.

    Dated: February 28, 1995.
Robert L. Schrenk,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 95-5695 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6198]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration


Rural Regional Trauma and Emergency Medical Services System 
Demonstration Grant Project in South Central Florida

agency: Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health 
Service, Department of Health and Human Services.

action: Notice of extension of application due date.

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

summary: This notice extends the application due date for a Rural 
Regional Trauma and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Demonstration 
Grant Project in South Central Florida. The application due date for 
the South Central Florida project is extended to May 15, 1995. All 
other aspects of the February 15, 1995 Federal Register Notice remain 
the same.

    Dated: March 9, 1995.
 Ciro V. Sumaya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-6198 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 99-11328

Summary Calendar

_______________

DONNA J. STEVENS-SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:99-CV-1020)

_________________________

April 5, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and

PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donna Stevens-Smith sued her former

employer forsexualharassment and retaliation

under title VII. In a comprehensive

memorandum opinion and order entered on

November 3, 1999, the district court carefully

explained that Stevens-Smith has produced no

summary judgment evidence of harassment or

retaliation.

It is evident that Stevens-Smith was fired

because, as she admits, she refused to follow

her supervisor’s specific instruction to change

her method of processing her work. As the

district court found, most of the statements of

which she complains were made beyond the

limitations period, but even assuming

arguendo that this action is not time-barred,

none of the alleged actions or statements can

fairly be deemed sexual harassment or

retaliation. 

Stevens-Smith bases her claim on little

more than self-serving speculation designed to

obscure poor job performance. Essentially for

the reasons persuasively set forth by the

 

*

 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.
2

district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.