alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           98791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 98791
<PP&E>                                            6038
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  104829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3794
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        137000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (35965)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    104829
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1209
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 13493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12284)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12284)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12284)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-24 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
##### 



December 1, 2004
    
    Exhibit 15
 Sears, Roebuck and Co.
3333 Beverly Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60179 We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the thirteen week and twenty-six week
periods ended July 3, 2004 and June 28, 2003, as indicated in our report dated
August 10, 2004, December 1, 2004 as to Note 10 (which
report includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement
discussed in Note 10); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 3, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,
333-08141, and 333-113532 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement No.
333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;
Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan;
Registration Statement No. 333-102114 of Sears, Roebuck and Co., the Sears
401(K) Savings Plan (formerly, the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears
Employees and the Sears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan) and Lands End, Inc.
Retirement Plan; Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and Sears DC Corp.; Registration Statement No. 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co. and the Sears Associate Stock Ownership Plan; Registration Statement No.
333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2000 Employee Stock Plan;
Registration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001
Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; and Registration Statement No. 333-87942 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my 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;d)
    
    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
 23




---



##### 



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;
andb)
    
    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:  November 5, 2010
    By:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President and
Trust Administrator
Bank of America, N.A. 24
Exhibit 13.1
  
 
 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 annual report on Form 20-F of Capital Product Partners L.P., a master limited partnership organized under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands (the "Company"), for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Company.
 
 
 Dated: February 4, 2011
 
 By:
/s/ Ioannis E. LazaridisName:
Ioannis E. LazaridisTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Warren Hickman, Respondent. Maximum Litigation Support Services, LLC, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 303]

Peters, P.J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 9, 2012, which ruled that the employer’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial determination dated and mailed January 13, 2011, claimant was deemed eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits based upon a finding that he and others similarly situated were employees of Maximum Litigation Support Services, LLC. By letter dated March 7, 2011, Maximum Litigation requested a hearing challenging that determination. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that Maximum Litigation’s request for a hearing was untimely and continued in effect the initial determination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed and these appeals ensued.

The record clearly establishes that Maximum Litigation did not request a hearing within the 30-day time period set forth in Labor Law § 620 (2). Notwithstanding Maximum Litigation’s excuse for the belated hearing request, “the statutory time period in which to request a hearing is to be strictly construed, and the statute contains no provision permitting an extension of time in which an employer can request a hearing” *(Matter of White [Lurie*— Commissioner *of Labor],*49 AD3d 932, 933 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *accord Matter of Agarwal [Bilingual Seit & Preschool, Inc.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*108 AD3d 807, 808 [2013]). As such, the Board’s decisions will not be disturbed. Maximum Litigation’s remaining claims, including that the Department of Labor’s letter dated March 24, 2011 constituted a new initial determination, have been examined and found to be without merit.

*1001McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or**

**Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

 
  SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTDate:   May 11, 2020  By: /s/ RON E. HOOPER   
Ron E. Hooper,

SVP Royalty Trust Management

Simmons Bank

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
EXHIBIT 4.1.1

                      SPECIMEN STOCK CERTIFICATE (revised)


NUMBER                                                              Shares
                           CONSOLE MARKETING INC

            INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
       23,000,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK AUTHORIZED $0.001 PAR VALUE


This                                                            20854T  10  1
                                                               SEE REVERSE FOR
                                                             CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
Certifies
that


is the owner of

            FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF
                             CONSOLE MARKETING INC.


  transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate
    and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the state of
 Nevada, and to the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation,
as now or hereunder amended. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned
  by the Transfer Agent. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the
                   signature of its duty authorized officers.


DATED

                             CONSOLE MARKETING INC.
                                                              /s/ [Not Legible]
                                 CORPORATE SEAL                   President

                                     NEVADA



<PAGE>
#### In re Will of Yelverton

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 267

No. 376P06-2

1. Caveator’s (Mansel Yelverton) Petition for Writ of Supersedeas (COA05-771 & 772)

2. Caveator’s (Mansel Yelverton) PWC to Review Order of Wayne County Superior Court

1. Denied 01/25/07

2. Denied 01/25/07

Hudson, J., Recused
#### Juan CLAROS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.

No. 06-1310.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.

Ivan Yacub, Law Office of Ivan Yacub, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*447Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Juan Claros, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s ruling finding Claros removable and denying his motion for a continuance. Claros challenges the denial of the motion for a continuance. We deny the petition for review.

“The immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006). Whether to grant such a motion “is within the sound discretion of the immigration judge and is reviewed for abuse of discretion only.” *Onyeme v. INS,*146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). Based on the materials before us, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Claros’ motion for a continuance.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ERRON OMAR SHEPHERD, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 17-296 (JEB) L. SHULTZ, Warden of Yazoo Correctional Complex, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Petitioner Erron Omar Shepher d is a federal inmate serving tim e at a correctional facility in Mississippi. See ECF No. 1 (Petition). He brings this habeas action seeking release from that federal prison on the ground that his sentence, in ef fect, allows him to be held as “surety for a debt” in violati on of various constitutional and statutory provisions. Id. at 14. Because Shepherd, in essence, seeks to challenge his sentence, his claim must be raised in a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Stephens v. Herrer a, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The general rule is th at a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 is the exclusive means by which a federal prisoner may test the legality of his detention , and that rest rictions on the availability of a § 2255 motion cannot be avoided through a [ha beas] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”); see also Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952). Section 2255(a) provides: A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground t hat the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or la ws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction t o impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collatera l2 attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate , set aside or correct the sentence. (emphasis added). In other words , petitioners must file their motions in the sentencing court. In Shepherd’s case that court is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi). S ee Petition at 1. Although this Court could thus dism iss Shepherd’s action, it wi ll instead transfer it to his sentencing court. An Order so stating accompanies this Memoran dum Opinion.

/s/ James E. Boasber g JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: April 6, 2017
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 648 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 648

To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to 
              extend the authority for drought assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2005

   Mr. Smith introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to 
              extend the authority for drought assistance.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF 
              ACT OF 1991.

    Section 104(c) of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief 
Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2005'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3598 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3598

  To clarify the effective date of the modification of treatment for 
retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before April 7, 1986, 
  of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care professionals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2006

Mr. Rockefeller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the effective date of the modification of treatment for 
retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before April 7, 1986, 
  of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care professionals.

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

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATION OF TREATMENT FOR RETIREMENT 
              ANNUITY PURPOSES OF CERTAIN PART-TIME SERVICE OF CERTAIN 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS.

    (a) Effective Date.--The effective date of the amendment made by 
section 132 of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
Enhancement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-135; 115 Stat. 2454) shall be 
January 23, 2002, in the case of health care professionals referred to 
in subsection (c) of section 7426 of title 38, United States Code (as 
so amended), who retire on or after that date and in the case of health 
care professionals referred to in such subsection (c) who retired 
before such date, but after April 7, 1986.
    (b) Recomputation of Annuity.--The Office of Personnel Management 
shall recompute the annuity of each health-care professional described 
in the first sentence of subsection (c) of section 7426 of title 38, 
United States Code (as so amended), who retired before January 23, 
2002, but after April 7, 1986, in order to take into account the 
amendment made by section 132 of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001. Such recomputation shall 
be effective with respect to annuities paid for months after January 
23, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2

                    Amendment to the Sears Executive
                      Retirement Plan Arrangements


     The plan entitled the "Sears Executive Retirement Plan
Arrangements" is hereby amended, effective as of March 24, 1997,
by substituting the following for paragraph 3.2 thereof:

     "3.2 Payment of Benefits.  The benefit payable to or on
account of a participant under the Plan shall be payable at the
time and under the same terms and conditions as described from
time to time in SRIP.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the
event that a participant dies prior to the commencement of
benefits from the Plan under circumstances where a lump sum death
benefit would be payable to his spouse or to a designated
beneficiary other than the spouse, such participant may elect to
have such lump sum payment paid instead to a trust.  Any such
election must be in writing in a form approved by the Pension
Plan Administrator and must contain the written consent of the
person to whom he is married at the time of his death, and must
also apply to SRIP.  A valid election under this paragraph shall
have the effect of changing the recipient of the lump sum payment
that would otherwise have been payable to the participant's
spouse or designated beneficiary on account of his death, but not
the method of calculating the amount of such payment.  The
Pension Plan Administrator may require additional documentation,
such as a copy of the current trust instrument, without which any
election under this paragraph shall be invalid.  A participant
may revoke any such election and may make a new election prior to
his death."



/s/ Arthur C. Martinez
Arthur C. Martinez


/s/ Alan J. Lacy
Alan J. Lacy


/s/ Anthony J. Rucci
Anthony J. Rucci


/s/ Michael D. Levin
Michael D. Levin