alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB
for  the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 5, 2005



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 5, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-78-01-PB

Mark Tormey

O R D E R

The United States has moved to continue the August 2, 2005

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

address and resolve defendant’s motion to suppress and to

complete discovery. Defense counsel does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from August 2, 2005 to September 7, 2005. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00078-PB Document 22 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The July 19, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until August 29, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

July 19, 2005

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00078-PB Document 22 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2016


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: February 7, 2017
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
189 La. 802

#### STATE v. PEPPER.

No. 34782.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 4, 1938.

S. R. Thomas, of Natchitoches, and James A. Horton, of Coushatta, for relator.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., H. L. Hug'hes, Dist. Atty., of Natchitoches, and H. W. Bethard, Jr., Sp. Counsel, of Coushatta, for the State.

PONDER, Justice.

The relator, R. Jessie Pepper, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve not less than 6 months nor more than 18 months in the penitentiary. The relator appealed from the conviction and sentence. Through error the transcript lodged in this court was incomplete. On February 8, 1938, the relator applied to the lower court for a rule to correct the minutes of the court, setting forth the errors complained of in the application, and for an order to the clerk of court to file a supplemental transcript. The lower court refused to sign the order for the rule. The relator applied to this court for the writs of certiorari and mandamus. The writ of certiorari was granted and a rule nisi was issued. Prior to the submission of the rule the supplemental transcript was filed in this court. It was stipulated in the supplemental transcript that counsel for the defendant and counsel for the State agreed that the sup*643plemental transcript was a full and complete answer to the rule.

All parties having agreed that the transcript is'complete, the controversy is eliminated. Hence there is nothing for the court to pass upon.

For the reasons assigned, the writ is recalled, and the rule is dismissed.
#### Julia Harriet MENA, Appellant, v. Ramon M. MENA, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 2, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsbor-ough County; L. L. Parks, Judge.

Affirmed.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 5, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00699-CV

WILLIAM SATTERWHITE, JR., Appellant

V.

CHRISTOPHER EVANS AND YI ZHANG, Appellees

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1059593

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 12, 2015. The notice of 

appeal was filed August 13, 2015. To date, our records show that appellant has not 

paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in 

civil cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying 

costs). Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207. 
2

On September 22, 2015, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate 

filing fee on or before October 7, 2015, or the appeal would be dismissed. 

Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered 

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case 

because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or 

other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby and Brown.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

JUAN RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civ. No. 05-325-JD

v. )

)

U. S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT )

ADMINISTRATION, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

ORDER

1. On October 5, 2005, Rodriguez filed a complaint requesting return of $1,905 in U.S.

Currency seized from him by the Nashua, NH, Police Department on March 29, 2004, and

adopted for federal forfeiture by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). 

Rodriguez complained that DEA denied him constitutionally adequate notice of the procedural

steps of the administrative forfeiture proceeding, although Rodriguez conceded that he received

actual notice of the forfeiture on June 9, 2004, including instructions on how to file a claim or

petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture. 

2. On December 12, 2005, the Court found that Rodriguez’s complaint alleged a postconviction claim for civil equitable relief against DEA, and ordered that the United States

respond. On February 13, 2006, the United States filed a motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which asserted that the DEA forfeiture was not

subject to judicial review because Rodriguez had received constitutionally-adequate notice of the

proceeding and had failed to file a timely claim, as required to obtain judicial review. 

Case 1:05-cv-00325-JD Document 58 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 2
3. The Court dismissed the complaint on March 29, 2006, entering judgment on the same

date. Rodriguez filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 26, 2006, and

filed a timely appeal to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 30, 2007, the

First Circuit reversed and remanded for fact findings regarding Rodriguez’s due process claim.

4. On June 28, 2007, the United States filed a Consent to Set Aside DEA’s

Administrative Forfeiture in this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

The Administrative Declaration of Forfeiture entered on August 4, 2004, in DEA Case

No. CG-04-0051, Asset Identification No. 04-DEA-435501, $1,905 in U.S. Currency seized

from Juan Rodriguez is hereby vacated and set aside, in accordance with the provisions of 18

U.S.C. 

§ 983(e);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the setting aside of the Administrative Declaration of

Forfeiture is without prejudice to the United States and its right to commence a subsequent

proceeding against the $1,905 in U.S. Currency within 60 days of the entry of the order granting

Rodriguez’s motion, in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 983(e).

Dated:________________________ _____________________________

United States District Judge

June 28, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Case 1:05-cv-00325-JD Document 58 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6177
JAMES FOUNTAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM BELL, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-836-5-HC-F-3) Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: April 19, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Fountain, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Fountain appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Albert Kuperman

v. 06-cv-420-JD

Warden, NH State Prison

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 18, 2007, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

stated therein.

SO ORDERED.

May 11, 2007 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Nancy Sue Tierney, Esq.

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 21 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


August 22, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 441 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on August 21, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-231492) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                           


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1490 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1490

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the 
definition of homebound with respect to home health services under the 
                           Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

    Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. King, Mr. 
McDermott, Mr. Holt, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Meehan, 
   Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Riley, Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. 
 Kucinich, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Sandlin, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
   Delahunt, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. 
   DeFazio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the 
definition of homebound with respect to home health services under the 
                           Medicare Program.

    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 ``Homebound Clarification Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF HOMEBOUND.

    (a) In General.--Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a); 1395n(a)), as amended by section 
507(a)(1)(B) of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A-532), are each amended by 
striking the last two sentences and inserting the following: ``Any 
other absence of an individual from the home, including any absence for 
the purpose of attending a religious service, shall not so disqualify 
the individual.''.
    (b) Technical Amendments.--(1) The fifth sentence of such sections 
1814(a) and 1835(a), as amended by section 507(a)(1)(A) of BIPA (114 
Stat. 2763A-532), is amended by striking ``leave home,'' and inserting 
``leave home and''.
    (2) Such section 1814(a) is further amended by moving the sixth 
sentence, as added by section 322(a)(1) of BIPA (114 Stat. 2763A-501), 
to the end of that section.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of section 507(a) of BIPA (114 
Stat. 2763A-532).
    (d) References to BIPA.--In this section, the term ``BIPA'' means 
the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection 
Act of 2000 (appendix F, 114 Stat. 2763A-463), as enacted into law by 
section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-57-01-PB

Gustavo Alverez

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the June 6, 2006 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete discovery and prepare for trial. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial

from June 6, 2006 to July 6, 2006. In agreeing to continue the

trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A)

that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00057-PB Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 31, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until June 28, 2006 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 31, 2006

cc: James Dennehy, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00057-PB Document 12 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2018


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: July 10, 2018
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1424 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1424

To amend the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 
to direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules that prohibit 
  certain deceptive and abusive recovery practices in connection with 
                             telemarketing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

   Mr. Baca introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 
to direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules that prohibit 
  certain deceptive and abusive recovery practices in connection with 
                             telemarketing.

    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 ``Deceptive and Abusive Recovery 
Practices in Telemarketing Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. RULES PROHIBITING CERTAIN DECEPTIVE AND ABUSIVE RECOVERY 
              PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH TELEMARKETING.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the Telemarketing and Consumer 
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(a)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
            ``(4) Rules prohibiting certain deceptive and abusive 
        recovery practices.--(A) The Commission shall prescribe under 
        this section rules that prohibit requesting or receiving 
        payment of any fee or consideration to--
                    ``(i) obtain, or assist in obtaining, any good or 
                service for which money or any item of value was paid 
                by a person in a previous telemarketing transaction; or
                    ``(ii) recover, or assist in recovering, money or 
                any other item of value paid by a person in a previous 
                telemarketing transaction;
        until 7 business days after the date the good or service, or 
        money or other item, respectively, is delivered to the person.
            ``(B) Rules prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall not 
        apply to the request or receipt of payment by an attorney 
        specifically retained to provide services described in 
        subparagraph (A) (i) or (ii).''.
    (b) Deadline.--The Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe rules 
under the amendment made by subsection (a) by not later than 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### John W. MARTIN, as Trustee of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Philip RUBINO, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc.

Sept. 12, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Fou rth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00618

- CV

Dina P. CISNEROS

- BONNETTE,

Appellant

v.

Emcel P. BONNETTE, Jr., Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 11830

Honorabl e Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

By order dated November 29, 2017, Ms. Kayleen Rivera was ordered to file her portion of the reporter’s record in this appeal no later than December 29, 2017. On January 3, 2018, Ms. Rivera called to inform the court that she was ill and would file a notification of late record by January 8, 2018. On January 8, 2018, Ms. Rivera filed a notification of late record stating she had been extremely ill with the flu and requested an extension of time to file the record. The notification of late record is NOTED, and the requested extension is GR ANTED. Ms. Rivera’s portion of the reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no later than January 31, 2018.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of January, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Andrew C. HIXSON, Executor of the Estate of Richard L. Hixson, Deceased, et al.

No. 1634.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1938.

Curtis P. Harris, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice, of Stillwater, Okl., for appellant.

Wilcox & Swank, of Stillwater, Okl., for appellees.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, pursuant to stipulation.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31103 Summary Calendar

MARION BURTON; SANDRA BURTON, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus CITY OF HAMMOND; POLICE CHIEF, for the City of Hammond; JAMES BANKS, JR., Officer, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-2096

- - - - - - - - - - December 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Banks, Jr., the City of Hammond (“the City”), and the Police Chief of Hammond (“the Chief”) appeal from the denial of their motion for summary judgment in the civil-rights action brought by Marion and Sandra Burton. The defendants argue that the district court erred by denying their summary-judgment motion on the merits of their qualified-immunity defense and the merits of their argument against the liability of the City and the Chief.No. 97-31103 -2- We must determine the basis of our jurisdiction, on our own motion, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5thCir. 1987). The district court rejected Banks’s qualifiedimmunity defense on the grounds that he had failed to show that his actions were objectively reasonable on the facts before the court; we have jurisdiction over Banks’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity. Naylor v. Louisiana , 127 F.3d 855, 857 (5th Cir. 1997). With the sole exception of the qualified-immunity defense, the district court’s order denying summary judgment is a nonappealable interlocutory order. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the defendants’ contentions apart from qualified immunity, and we dismiss the appeal except for that portion of the appeal addressing qualified immunity. Regarding the qualified immunity defense, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held in conjunction with the order denying summary judgment. See Burton v. Hammond , No. 95-CV-2096 (E.D. La. Sep. 19, 1997).
APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.