alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

AllstateLife Insurance Company of New York

100Motor Parkway, Suite 132

Hauppauge,New York 11788

 

Wehave reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financialinformation of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York for the three monthperiods ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, and have issued our report dated May 11,2009.  As indicated in our report,because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation.

 

Weare aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,is incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 

| **Form S-3 Registration Statement Nos.** | ** ** | **Form N-4 Registration Statement Nos.** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| 333-158183                                                   |       | 033-65381                                                    |
| 333-158655                                                   |       | 333-94785                                                    |

 

 

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Chicago,Illinois

**May 11, 2009**

 

E-2

----
11516.

#### George B. Curd Company *v.*Meigs Lumber & Manufacturing Co.

Decided July 15, 1920.

Action on contract; from city court of Thomasville—-Judge *W.*H. Hammond. April *2,*1920.

*F. A. Hooper & Son, J. H. Merrill,*for plaintiff.

*Titus & Dekle,*for defendant.

Broyles, C. J.

1. In a suit for the breach of a contract, where the only damages sued for were special damages which were not recoverable, and the petition contained no prayer for nominal damages and no allegation of general damages, the case falls within the general rule that where only special and punitive damages are sued for, a Judgment sustaining a demurrer to tlie petition will not be reversed because the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover nominal damages if the allegations of the petition as to damages had been sufficient to cover the same. *Hadden*v. *Southern Messenger Service,*135 *Ga.*372 (3), 374 (69 S. E. 480) ; *Twin City Lumber Co.*v. *Daniels,*22 *Ga. App.*578 (4).

2. Under tlie facts of .the ease as disclosed by the record, the court did not err in dismissing the petition as amended, on the demurrer interposed, or thereafter in refusing to reopen the case for the purpose of allowing another amendment to the petition to be filed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luke, J., disqualified.*
BOBBY L. MAGWOOD

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

,

Respondents.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14-1399

Opinion filed September 26, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction.

Bobby L. Magwood, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Franklin Vitale, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

VAN NORTWICK, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29111]



[[Page 73686]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8965]


In the Matter of the Designation of Said Ali al-Shihri as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    In accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of 
September 23, 2001, as amended (``the Order''), I hereby determine that 
the individual known as Said Ali al-Shihri, also known as other aliases 
and transliterations, no longer meets the criteria for designation 
under the Order, and therefore I hereby revoke the designation of the 
aforementioned individual as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
pursuant to section 1(b) of the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-29111 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-37-P
<PAGE>   1


                   EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                   -------------------------------------------




                  SUBSIDIARY                             STATE OF INCORPORATION
                  ----------                             ----------------------

      Morgan's Creative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.                  Ohio
      Morgan's Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.                           Ohio
      Morgan's Restaurants of Pennsylvania, Inc.               Pennsylvania
      Morgan's Restaurants of West Virginia, Inc.             West Virginia
            (aka Morgan's Weirton Foods, Inc.)
      Morgan's Restaurants of New Jersey, Inc.                  New Jersey
      Morgan's Foods of Missouri, Inc.                           Missouri
      Morgan's Restaurants of New York, Inc.                     New York
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30,
2004 of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New
York.

|Date: August 10, 2004 | /s/CASEY J. SYLLACasey J. Sylla
Chairman of the Board and President           
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | /s/STEVEN E. SHEBIKSteven E. Shebik
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

E-5

---
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-61173 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RONDALL MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:02-CR-60-MPM-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rondall Mullins appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). He argues that the district court erred in
not imposing substance-abus e treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3583(d) in lieu of incarceration. Mullins committed several violations of the conditions of his supervised release. Failure of

a drug test was but one of those violations. Moreover, the district court considered but rejected the available treatmentNo. 04-61173 -2- options. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Accordingly, there was no error in the district court’s revocat ion of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
11643.

#### Manning *v.*The State.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Indictment for larceny of hog; from Brooks superior court — Judge Thomas. May 6, 1920.

*Bennett & Harrell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Clifford E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra:

Luke, J.

This case is controlled by the decision of this court in *Manning*v. *State,*ante, 552.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 25, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00464-CR

BENNY HERBERT, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 228th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1532313 

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

On May 18, 2017, Benny Herbert pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 

possession of a controlled substance. Under the terms of a plea-bargain agreement 

between appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years’ 

imprisonment. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction 

on June 3, 2019. 

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal for two reasons: the notice of appeal was 

not filed timely, and this is a plea bargain case with no appealable matters and 

appellant has not been granted permission to appeal.
2

First, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after 

sentence is imposed if the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 is essential to vest the court of appeals with 

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an 

appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to 

address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action 

other than to dismiss the appeal. Id. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed more than 

two years after the sentence was imposed. Therefore, the appeal was not timely 

perfected. 

Second, in a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was 

guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment 

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may 

appeal only matters raised by a written, pretrial motion or with the trial court’s 

permission. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant’s punishment does not exceed the 

agreed length of confinement. The record does not contain any appealable pretrial 

rulings, and the trial court did not grant appellant permission to appeal.

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RONNIE S. COBY, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0544-CG-M 

 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of 

Social Security, : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER 

 After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. '

636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court. 

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00544-CG-M Document 26 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7054

JOSEPH CUCINIELLO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-hc-02008-FL)

Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Cuciniello, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Cuciniello, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Cuciniello v. Ratledge, No. 5:15-hc-02008-FL (E.D.N.C. 

June 22, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4857

To require the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to enter into a memorandum of understanding to guide the integration 

of the automated fingerprint identification systems of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2004

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To require the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a memorandum of understanding to guide the integration of the automated fingerprint identification systems of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Border Security Infor5 mation Integration Act’’. 
2

•HR 4857 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INTEGRATION OF AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDEN2 TIFICATION SYSTEMS. 

3 (a) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The At4 torney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

5 shall enter into a memorandum of understanding, not 

6 later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this 

7 Act, to guide the integration of the IAFIS system and the 

8 IDENT system. 

9 (b) COORDINATION.—The Chief Information Officer 

10 of the Department of Justice and the Chief Information 

11 Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall be 

12 responsible for coordinating the integration of the IAFIS 

13 system and the IDENT system. 

14 (c) DAILY UPDATE OF THE IDENT SYSTEM.—Until 

15 the IAFIS system and the IDENT system have been fully 

16 integrated, as determined by the Chief Information Officer 

17 of the Department of Justice and the Chief Information 

18 Officer of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

19 IDENT system shall be updated on a daily basis with in20 formation pertaining to warrants issued by the Federal 

21 Bureau of Investigation and individuals wanted for ques22 tioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

23 (d) USE OF AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICA24 TION SYSTEMS BY A BORDER PATROL AGENT.—The Sec25 retary of Homeland Security shall develop a clear and uni26 form policy that details when a border patrol agent shall 
3

•HR 4857 IH 

1 use the IAFIS system and the IDENT system. If a border 

2 patrol agent uses the IAFIS system or the IDENT system 

3 with respect to an alien, the border patrol agent shall up4 date both systems with information pertaining to the 

5 agent’s encounter with the alien. 

6 (e) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

7 (1) the term ‘‘IAFIS system’’ means the Fed8 eral Bureau of Investigation’s integrated automated 

9 fingerprint identification system; and 

10 (2) the term ‘‘IDENT system’’ means the De11 partment of Homeland Security’s automated biomet12 ric fingerprint identification system.

Æ
#### Stephanie G. PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elizabeth MEACHAM, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-36042.

D.C. No. CV-00-1314.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided June 1, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *Sea*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Stephanie G. Pierce appeals pro se the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata. *Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman,*123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997). Because Pierce’s complaint raised claims identical to those she raised in district court No. CV-99-671, the district court properly found these claims precluded and dismissed the action without leave to amend. *See id.; Albrecht v. Lund,*845 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th Cir.1988).

Pierce’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 


246 

248 
243 

251 
Hon. L. S. Johnson - Page 10 

Since the plan now under consideration does not "aome 

within the purview of Article 152&a*, in avower to your question 

(a) it is the opinion of this department that certificates of such 

types are not subject to the limitatione and restrict&one contained 

in Article 152&a and need not be approved by the Banking Commissioner

Therefore, we answer question (a) in the affirmative. 

Article 696 provides as follows: 

"Each corporat!.an, oompang or inditidual, doing 

business in this State a&a bond invfbutment company, or 

company to place or sell bonds~ eertkkficates or debentures on the part&al pa: 

r 

nt or inet&Xment plan, eha.U 

depotit with the State masumr, &II cash, or seauritiee 

approved by said Treasurer, the sum of five thousand 

doU.ars, and shaU deposit eea~%*annuaUy ntth eaid 

Tmmsurer, in oaahor aeetMt&er, te be approved bysaid 

offiaer, ten p+w Oknt 0S all iibt rez&am mchved until 

the suln depocrited Ba#)ants to:ems %. mndmd thvusand d&lars." 

From whet we have .&Ld la &M$’ tiequ&;onn~~~~~~yr 

opinion that it neeessar&ly poL10ws th& the 

,FCooparativv Board Olr~iPboatsrn 

certlfPcates OF debentures as vo 

ths @thy QfbOSld8, 

Sole 6%. On the 

contrary, it amvmta to c sale of 

Therefore, it is our epiai~on that 

to au&a, the deposits set forth in 

instaxlwmz: pl‘&u%. 

avmpany 18 not requ%red 

9n view 0S our bmnwx to que83,ion (a} j it 

guhrer question (c). We t%rkmm queatibn {d) Pn the 

Yours vvry 

JR:djm
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CRUZ ELENA GUERRA,

APPELLANT

V.

OSCAR R. QUEZADA, M.D. AND 

EL PASO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, 

LTD. D/B/A DEL SOL MEDICAL 

CENTER,

APPELLEES

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00302-CV

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014-DCV1504)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes that the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<page>
								      EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS


I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

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
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-
15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and


<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter'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 registrant'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
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.









Date:   August 16, 2004       /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                 Jeffrey A. Rothman
                                 President,
                                 Demeter Management Corporation,
                                 general partner of the registrant
Exhibit 24.1
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
   /s/ William R. Voss*

William R. Voss, Chairman of the Board
    
    
    
    /s/ Mickey P. Foret*

Mickey P. Foret/s/ Robert L. Bagby *
    
    
    
    /s/ Douglas A. Hacker*Robert L. Bagby
    
    
    
    Douglas A. Hacker/s/ Sam K. Duncan*
    
    
    
    /s/Hawthorne L. Proctor*Sam K. Duncan
    
    
    
    Hawthorne L. Proctor