alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
R. Royall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 3, 2004


/S/Richard R. Royall
Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 31.b  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Larry Bruce, certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Blink Logic 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 operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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)) 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 our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, 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)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure 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 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 registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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 controls over financial reporting.   /s/ Larry Bruce Larry Bruce Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer Date: November 16, 2007
#### CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Long Island Lighting Company, Orange and Rock-land Utilities, Inc., Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, International Paper Company, Federal Paper Board Company Inc., Champion International Corporation, and Weyerhauser Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Spencer ABRAHAM, Secretary of Energy, and George B. Breznay, Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of Energy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1207.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ claims under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1971. *See Consol. Edison Co. v. Abraham,*No 97-2876 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2002). The district court held that the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”), despite being owned by a “state” signatory to the settlement set forth in *In re Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation,*653 F.Supp. 108 (D.Kan.1986), was nevertheless entitled to apply for crude oil refunds under the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 205, Subpart V. The district court further held that the decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy to award PREPA an overcharge refund was not in excess of the agency’s authority and was supported by substantial evidence. We *affirm.*

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the standard applicable at the district court. *See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc.,*174 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir.1999) (citing *Conroy v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd.,*14 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1994)). Summary judgment is only appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); *see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Having applied that standard of review, we conclude that the district court made no errors of law in its grant of summary judgment. The parties agree that there are no disputes of material fact. We affirm based upon the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis.
#### VILCE v. TRAVELERS INS. CO.

No. 2606.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 5, 1944.

For former opinion see 16 So.2d 486.

Cline, Thompson, Lawes & Cavanaugh, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

M. R. Stewart and Coleman D. Reed, both of Lake Charles, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Considering the application for rehearing filed by the plaintiff-appellee, and considering also the documents thereto annexed:

It is ordered that this case be re-docketed for argument at the next regular session of the Court to be held at Lake Charles, La., during the month of May, 1944, argument then to be restricted solely to the question whether the case should be remanded to the lower Court for the purpose of having there presented further testimony concerning plaintiff’s physical disability resulting from the accident on which compensation is claimed. .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randy S. Campney, Sr.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-297-JD

Bare Hill Correctional

Facility, Superintendent

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner seeks a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction (Document No. 44). Apparently he wants to

enjoin prosecutors and law enforcement personnel from contacting

his ex-wife outside his presence.

I recommend that the motion be denied for a number of

reasons.

1. The only defendant in this habeas case is the warden. 

“To hold a non-party bound by an injunction, it is essential to

prove either that the non-party participated in the contumacious

act of a party or that the non-party (should be) subject to the

injunction because legally identified with a party.” G&C Merriam

Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., Inc., 639 F.2d 29, 35 (1st Cir.

1980). Here petitioner has shown neither as to the unidentified

prosecutors and officers. 

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 53 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 2
2

2. He has not shown a single fact to suggest that counsel

or the police are in contact or have attempted to contact Harris.

3. He has not alleged any facts to establish a likelihood

of success on the merits nor even how Harris would have anything

to do with this habeas action.

4. Petitioner has not been granted an evidentiary hearing.

In short, I recommend that the motion be denied without

hearing.

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 19, 2007

cc: Randy S. Campney, Sr., pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 53 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Rice, Appellant, *v.*Braden.

Argued Oct. 8, 1914.

Appeal, No. 166, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., in equity, No. 2222, sustaining demurrer to bill in equity in case of Maggie A. Rice, Peter Kane, Daniel Kane, Owen Kane, John Bellew, Malachy Bellew, Joseph Bellew and Bernard Bellew v. Anna Braden and O. D. Bleakley, Trustee under the last will and testament of Sarah McKeown, deceased.

Before Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

*Owen C. Underwood,*with him *W. S. Maxey*and *R. H. Meloy,*for appellants.

*John C. Bane,*with him *James P. Braden, A. G. Braden, Braden & Campbell*and *J. M. Dickson,*for appellees.

*577October 26, 1914:

Pee Cubiam,

The parties to the suit, the issues raised by the demurrer filed by defendants to the plaintiffs’ bill and, in the main, the facts found by the learned chancellor in this case are the same as in Rice v. Braden, 243 Pa. 141, and for the reasons there given the decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s bill entered by the court below in this case, is affirmed.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2014


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: December 23, 2014
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54418-54419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21932]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1791-DR]


Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1791-DR), dated September 13, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 13, 2008.

    Angelina, Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, 
Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, 
Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, 
Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, 
Walker, Waller, and Washington Counties for emergency protective 
measures (Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under 
the Public Assistance program (already designated for debris removal 
[Category A], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public 
Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

[[Page 54419]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21932 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John L. Buchet,

v. Civil No. 06-cv-319-SM

United States Forest Service,

a division of the United States

Department of Agriculture;

Southern Carroll County District

Court; Town of Sandwich, NH; and

Board of Selectmen for the

Town of Sandwich, NH,

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff’s complaint is facially deficient in any

number of respects, but it is sufficient to note that he fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted against any of the

named defendants and has failed to adequately invoke this court’s

jurisdiction as to most.

Ordinarily, the court would allow a reasonable period of

time to amend the complaint, but that seems inappropriate in this

case for at least two reasons. First, the complaint is so

lacking in any hint of the possibility of expressing a nonfrivolous claim, that an amendment would almost certainly be

futile. Second, the attorney general suggests that plaintiff has

been found incompetent to stand trial in a criminal matter, and

Case 1:06-cv-00319-SM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 3
2

so may be suffering from substantial disabilities. Plaintiff has

also paid a hefty filing fee - recently raised by Congress to

$350.00 — which is a steep price to pay merely to watch a

facially hopeless complaint meet its predictable end following a

futile amendment.

In plaintiff’s own interest, and to be fair under the

circumstances, the court will enter the following orders. The

pending motions to dismiss are granted for the reasons given, the

complaint is also dismissed against the United States for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because it

is frivolous as pled, and plaintiff’s filing fee of $350.00 shall

be returned to him. Finally, plaintiff may not file another

complaint in this court involving the same subject matter without

first obtaining leave of court. Future filings by this plaintiff

will be referred to the undersigned for preliminary review,

before a filing fee is accepted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

November 21, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00319-SM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 3
3

cc: John L. Buchet, pro se

T. David Plourde, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Laura A. Spector, Esq.

Walter L. Mitchell, III, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00319-SM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3
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. 72 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-36304) and Amendment No. 686 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible
      payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1291

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the

amount of educational benefits for veterans under the

Montgomery GI Bill.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1291 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘21st Century Mont3 gomery GI Bill Enhancement Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL AS5 SISTANCE UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Section 3015(a)(1) of title 38,

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(1) for an approved program of education pur9 sued on a full-time basis, at the monthly rate of—

10 ‘‘(A) for months occurring during fiscal

11 year 2002, $800,

12 ‘‘(B) for months occurring during fiscal

13 year 2003, $950,

14 ‘‘(C) for months occurring during fiscal

15 year 2004, $1,100, and

16 ‘‘(D) for months occurring during a subse17 quent fiscal year, the amount for months occur18 ring during the previous fiscal year increased

19 under subsection (h); or’’.

20 (2) Section 3015(b)(1) of such title is amended to

21 read as follows:

22 ‘‘(1) for an approved program of education pur23 sued on a full-time basis, at the monthly rate of—

24 ‘‘(A) for months occurring during fiscal

25 year 2002, $650,
3

HR 1291 RFS

1 ‘‘(B) for months occurring during fiscal

2 year 2003, $772,

3 ‘‘(C) for months occurring during fiscal

4 year 2004, $894, and

5 ‘‘(D) for months occurring during a subse6 quent fiscal year, the amount for months occur7 ring during the previous fiscal year increased

8 under subsection (h); or’’.

9 (b) CPI ADJUSTMENT.—No adjustment in rates of

10 educational assistance shall be made under section

11 3015(h) of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal years

12 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

By MARTHA C. MORRISON,

Deputy Clerk.
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. 28 to the 1933 Act
    Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-172328) and Amendment No. 692 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
    individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

  

  

  /s/ Ernst &  Young LLP

  

  

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  August 22, 2019
#### Gregory G. G. JOOPANENKO, Appellant, v. C. L. WILSON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Feb. 12, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Charles A. Luckie, Judge.

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ VALENCIA,

Appellant,

v.

ELDORADO PLAZA WEST ASSOCIATION INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1334

[February 24, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19015157.

Mark L. Pomeranz of Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., Hallandale Beach, 

for appellant.

Steven B. Katz of Law Office of Steven B. Katz, P.A., Lauderhill, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          1,010
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          4,622
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     9,866
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          3,210
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            3,129
<LOANS>                                       122,709
<ALLOWANCE>                                       700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                147,892
<DEPOSITS>                                    120,423
<SHORT-TERM>                                    3,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               610
<LONG-TERM>                                     8,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          108
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                147,892
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 2,543
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 291
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                2,834
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,437
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,602
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,232
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   358
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        217
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      217
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.56
<LOANS-NON>                                       490
<LOANS-PAST>                                      302
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  682
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      14
<RECOVERIES>                                        2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 700
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              700
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>