alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
auditorconsent.htm











Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 48 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) pertaining to Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 49, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 6, 2011, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N.







/s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


July 5, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4226 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4226

 To designate baby formula as a scarce and critical material under the 
        Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2022

   Mr. Rubio (for himself, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. 
   Padilla) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate baby formula as a scarce and critical material under the 
        Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urgently Feeding America's Babies 
Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF INFANT FORMULA AS CRITICAL MATERIAL.

    Immediately upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
President shall determine under subsection (b) of section 101 of the 
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4511) that--
            (1) infant formula is scarce and a critical material 
        essential to the national defense; and
            (2) the requirements of the national defense for infant 
        formula cannot be met without exercising the authority provided 
        by subsection (a) of that section.

SEC. 3. WAIVER BY FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 15 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall implement a 
process under which the Secretary may issue waivers, with respect to an 
infant formula that is available for commercial use in the European 
Union, of the requirements of sections 412 and 415 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350a; 350d), and other applicable 
requirements of such Act, as appropriate, in order to allow for the 
introduction into interstate commerce of such infant formula in the 
United States.
    (b) Publication of Guidelines.--The Secretary shall publish safety 
guidelines for each infant formula for which a waiver is issued under 
this section.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4304

To prohibit unfair treatment of cadets and midshipmen who refuse to get 
             the COVID-19 vaccine, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2022

Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Braun, 
  Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. 
  Daines, Mr. Hoeven, and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit unfair treatment of cadets and midshipmen who refuse to get 
             the COVID-19 vaccine, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defending Freedom of Conscience for 
Cadets and Midshipmen Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual'' 
        means a cadet or midshipman at a Federal service academy.
            (2) Federal service academy.--The term ``Federal service 
        academy'' means the following:
                    (A) The United States Military Academy, West Point, 
                New York.
                    (B) The United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, 
                Maryland.
                    (C) The United States Air Force Academy, Colorado 
                Springs, Colorado.
                    (D) The United States Coast Guard Academy, New 
                London, Connecticut.
                    (E) The United States Merchant Marine Academy, 
                Kings Point, New York.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON VACCINE REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION FROM FEDERAL 
              SERVICE ACADEMIES.

    A covered individual may not be required to be vaccinated for 
COVID-19 as a condition for graduation from a Federal service academy 
nor dismissed from a Federal service academy as a result of refusing to 
be so vaccinated.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON ENFORCEMENT OF REPAYMENT PROVISIONS FOR REFUSAL 
              TO RECEIVE VACCINE.

    A covered individual who is prohibited from fulfilling his or her 
service agreement due to that individual's decision not to be 
vaccinated for COVID-19 may not be subjected to the repayment 
provisions of section 303a(e) or 373 of title 37, United States Code, 
or to debt repayment collections provided for under chapter 176 of 
title 28, United States Code, pursuant to section 7448, 8459, or 9448 
of title 10, United States Code, section 1925 of title 14, United 
States Code, or section 51306 of title 46, United States Code, as the 
case may be.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w1







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.1




THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES




NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN



Amendment No. 1




     The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby adopts this Amendment No. 1 to The
Greenbrier Companies Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) in order to permit
participants in the Plan to defer receipt of shares of restricted stock issuable pursuant to awards
made under the Company’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, or a successor stock-based incentive plan (the
“Stock Incentive Plan”). This Amendment No. 1 amends the terms of the Adoption Agreement for the
Plan executed on December 29, 2009.



     1. Definition of “Compensation”. Section 1.15(e) of the Adoption Agreement is
amended by deleting the exclusion of Restricted Stock from the definition of Compensation eligible
to be deferred under the Plan. Participants shall be permitted to elect to defer receipt of shares
of restricted stock awarded under the Stock Incentive Plan, and shares of restricted stock issuable
pursuant to awards of restricted stock units made under the Stock Incentive Plan. Stock dividends
payable on shares of Restricted Stock deferred under the Plan shall be payable to the Trustee under
the Plan and credited to Participants’ accounts under the Plan. Cash dividends payable on shares
of Restricted Stock deferred under the Plan shall be paid directly to the Participant when declared
and paid to shareholders, and shall not be deferred under the Plan or credited to Participants’
accounts under the Plan.



     2. Maximum Elective Deferral Amount. Section 2.02(A)(b) of the Adoption Agreement is
amended to read as follows:




“(b) Maximum Elective Deferral amount: 50% of Base Salary, bonus and other cash
Compensation. 100% of stock-based Compensation, including all stock-based awards
made pursuant to the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, whether paid in cash or Shares
of Company stock .”



     3. Effective Date. This Amendment No. 1 shall be effective as of May 25, 2011.
Except as hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	

THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ William A. Furman
 	 
	 	 	Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 	 	 	 



 









 






	 	 	 	 	 




     This Amendment No. 1 to The Greenbrier Companies Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan was
adopted and approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors on May 25, 2011.
Exhibit 99.1



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Board of Directors

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiary as of September 30, 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statement of changes in shareholders equity for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2005 and
the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine month periods ended September 30, 2005 and 2004. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.



We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do
not express such an opinion.



Based on our review, we are not aware of any
material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.



We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 9,
2005 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.
|S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.    
|Steubenville, Ohio      

November 8, 2005
H*l-I$

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 11-13-00056-CR OFFENSE: DWI

Gordon Stanley Blocker

STYLE: v. The State of Texas COUNTY: Tarrant

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: County Criminal Court No. 9

DATE: 1/08/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1266266

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Gordon Stanley Blocker v.

style: The State of Texas

APPELLAA/T^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

cca#: PD-0441-15

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

r< ifuj e t/ JUDGE:

DATE: ^/w 7ftJ %&/<

JUDGE: P<^

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
SCWC

- 13

- 0002894

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

JAYSON AULD, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 13

- 0002894; CR. NO. 12

- 1

- 0690(3))

ORDER ACCEP TING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack , and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant Jayson Auld’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on April 9, 2015, is

hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding

scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, May 20 , 2015.

Benjamin E. Lowenthal /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Artemio C. Baxa

for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0002894

20-MAY-2015

02:53 PM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3396

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Harris, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold J. Rothwax, J.), rendered May 12, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of four counts of sodomy in the first degree and sentencing him, as a predicate violent felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12 *Vi*to 25 years on counts 2 and 3 of the indictment to run consecutively to the indeterminate 12Vi-to-25-year terms imposed on counts 7 and 9, said sentences to run consecutively to each other and to owed parole time, unanimously affirmed.

On appeal from his convictions, which arise from sexual assaults on three different victims, which were committed on three different occasions in September and October 1987 in the same housing project on East 28th Street, defendant contends that the trial court, in its *Sandoval*ruling, abused its discretion in failing to limit the scope of cross-examination with respect to defendant’s past crimes, and that the sentence imposed is excessive.

The similarity between the crimes charged and defendant’s past convictions posed a special problem for the court, but the mere fact that defendant’s prior convictions were, in the main, sex crimes, did not insulate him from cross-examination regarding them. *(See, People v Rahman,*62 AD2d 968, *affd*46 NY2d 882.) Further, there is nothing in the record that shows that the court did not undertake a proper balancing test. Defendant’s prior felony convictions, two rapes, one sodomy, and one robbery, followed defendant’s guilty plea that satisfied an indictment containing charges arising out of 14 separate sexual attacks. The court limited cross-examination to the nature of the convictions and to the sentence that was im*196posed, barring any examination of the underlying facts or circumstances. Accordingly, we find that the court’s determination was a sound exercise of its discretion. *(See, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 374.) Likewise, the sentences imposed were entirely just. Defendant was convicted after trial of three most heinous crimes. Once he had been found guilty, the court was free to impose a sentence greater than the one offered to defendant by the prosecutor before trial. *(See, People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 411-412.) We further note the trial court’s expressed unwillingness to accept the plea bargain that had been offered to and rejected by defendant. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-721]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 3721-001; Project No. 4270-001; Project No. 4282-001; 
Project No. 4312-001; Project No. 4628-001; Project No. 4738-002; 
Project No. 9231-000]


Puget Sound Power & Light Company; Mountain Rhythum Resources; 
Mountain Water Resources; Watersong Resources; McGrew & Associates; 
McGrew, McMaster, Koch, Scott Paper Company; Notice of Extending Time 
To Comment on Draft EIS

January 6, 1995.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 7 proposed projects in the 
Nooksack River Basin, Washington. The Notice of Availability of the 
DEIS appeared in the Federal Register on December 2, 1994, 59 FR 61894.
    In response to a letter filed by the Washington Department of 
Ecology, FERC is extending the comment period on the DEIS from January 
30, 1995, until March 1, 1995.
    Anyone wishing to comment in writing on the DEIS must do so no 
later than March 1, 1995. Comments should be addressed to: Lois D. 
Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Written correspondence should clearly show the following caption on 
the first page: Nooksack River Basin Docket No. EL85-19-118.
    For further information, please contact Tom Dean at (202) 219-2778.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-721 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3606

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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 Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
that, to the best of her knowledge:





1.           The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009 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 11, 2009
              By: /s/ Anna E. GluskinAnna
      E. Gluskin, Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





DATE:
      December 11, 2009
              By: /s/ Rose C. PerriRose
      C. Perri, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2192

Signode Industrial Group LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn