alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, John Chieffo, Chief Accounting Officer of
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, hereby certify that the accompanying
Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2004,
containing  the  financial  statements  of  Pruco  Life of New  Jersey  Variable
Contract  Real  Property  Account (a  separate  account of Pruco Life  Insurance
Company of New  Jersey)  and The  Prudential  Variable  Contract  Real  Property
Partnership  (the "Report"),  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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of Pruco  Life of New  Jersey  Variable
Contract  Real  Property  Account  and The  Prudential  Variable  Contract  Real
Property Partnership.

Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ John Chieffo
-------------------

Name: John Chieffo
Title: Chief Accounting Officer

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.


                                       30
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2045 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2045

 To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on 0,0-dimethyl-s-[(4-oxo-
        1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4h)-yl)methyl] phosphorodithioate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 1993

  Mr. Wheat introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on 0,0-dimethyl-s-[(4-oxo-
        1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4h)-yl)methyl] phosphorodithioate.

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

SECTION 1. 0,0-DIMETHYL-S-[(4-OXO-1,2,3-BENZOTRIAZIN-3(4H)-YL)METHYL] 
              PHOSPHORODITHIOATE.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12  0,0-dimethyl-s-[(4-oxo-1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4h)-                            No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        yl)methyl] phosphoro-dithioate (provided for in                                                               31/96           ''
                        subheading 2933.90.18)..................................  Free                                                                . 

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.28.2 
 

 
                                 August 9, 2006 
 Jeffrey R. Black 
 100 Endo Boulevard 
 Chadds Ford, PA 19317 
 Dear Jeff:

 Reference is hereby made to that certain amended and restated employment agreement, dated as of September 1, 2002 (as amended, the
“Employment Agreement”), between you and Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. (the “Company”). Terms used but not defined in this letter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. 
 It is with regret that the Company accepts your desire to retire from your position as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
the Company effective August 9, 2006. Accordingly, the Employment Agreement will be terminated as of the close of business on such date and of no further force and effect other than those obligations which continue by their terms (such as
Sections 2.4, 3.2, Article 7 and Article 8). 
 If you are in agreement with this letter agreement, which shall be effective as of
August 9, 2006, please execute below. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Peter A. Lankau

	Peter A. Lankau
	Chef Executive Officer


 ACCEPTED AND AGREED THIS 9th DAY OF August 2006: 
  

	
	 /S/ Jeffrey R. Black

	 Jeffrey R. Black
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1124-1125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-366]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6929-7]


Acid Rain NO<INF>X</INF> Emission Reduction Program--Permit 
Modification for Alternative Emission Limitation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of permit modification adopting Alternative Emission 
Limitation.

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

SUMMARY: Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, EPA established the Acid 
Rain NO<INF>X</INF> Emission Reduction Program to reduce the adverse 
effects of acidic deposition. EPA adopted nitrogen oxides ( 
NO<INF>X</INF>) emission limits and issued permits to affected sources. 
EPA is issuing Acid Rain permit modifications for two units at a 
source. Each permit modification adds a new NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
limitation, i.e., Alternative Emission Limitation for

[[Page 1125]]

 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to the permit for the source. The Alternative 
Emission Limitations are less stringent than the standard limit for 
this type of unit but are the minimum rate that the units can achieve 
during long-term dispatch operation with low NO<INF>X</INF> burners.

ADDRESSES: Administrative Records. The administrative record for the 
permit modification, except information protected as confidential, may 
be viewed during normal operating hours at the following location: EPA 
Region 3, 1650 Arch Street 14th floor, Philadelphia, PA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller, EPA Region 3, (215) 814-
2068.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In today's action, EPA is issuing permit 
modifications that add to a permit Alternative Emission Limitations for 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for two units in accordance with Parts 72 and 
76 of the Acid Rain Program regulations. The units involved, Morgantown 
Units 1 and 2, are located in Charles County, Maryland and will be 
required to meet an annual average emissions limit for NO<INF>X</INF> 
of 0.63 lb/mmBtu and 0.64 lb/mmBtu, respectively, instead of the 
otherwise applicable standard limit of 0.45 lb/mmBtu. The units' 
designated representative is James S. Potts.

    Dated: December 27, 2000.
Larry F. Kertcher,
Acting Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric 
Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 01-366 Filed 1-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2015

No. 04-15-00010-CV

Pedro MARQUEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Lisa A. WATKINS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-14-89

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Gay Richey's notification of late reporter's record is hereby NOTED. The reporter's 

record is due on or before May 22, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
ET&T HOST PROCESSING AGREEMENT

This Agreement states that Betting, Inc., a Missouri
corporation, does hereby agree that Electronic
Transactions & Technologies ("ET&T") shall be the
sole provider of bank host processing for all
Betting, Inc. transactions that are sent by
terminals that read credit cards, ATM cards, or
smart cards.

That ET&T shall charge Betting, Inc. a fee of $0.25
per transaction or 2.5% of the wager being sent by
Betting, Inc. to gaming operators.

That these transactions shall originate from
globally placed Betting, Inc. equipment and/or
Betting, Inc. licensed operators.

This exclusive ET&T host service contract for
Betting, Inc. expires on January 1, 2006.

              Electronic Transactions & Technologies


Dated: April 28, 1997      By:_/s/  Thomas S. Hughes
                    Thomas S, Hughes, Chairman & CEO


                                       Betting, Inc.


Dated: April 28, 1997     By:_/s/_Thomas S. Hughes__
                    Thomas S. Hughes, Chairman & CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000829321
<NAME> METLIFE TEXAS HOLDINGS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           264,759
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           53,401
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       2,510
<MORTGAGE>                                      33,203
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 450,760
<CASH>                                          62,990
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               5,834
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          47,685
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 558,529
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                402,964
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  7,874
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   558,529
<PREMIUMS>                                      10,467
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             24,197
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 873
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  11,477
<BENEFITS>                                      28,340
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      2,627
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,817
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,762
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,762
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Munkhbayar PUUREE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-73974.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba, a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

David Nicholas Harling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Munkhbayar Puuree, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from Puuree’s declaration of death threats by his former employer and a police inspector, and the inconsistencies and omissions regarding the police threats to Puuree’s father after Puuree departed Mongolia. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances). Puuree’s explanations, including translation errors, do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Further, we reject Puuree’s contention that the agency failed to consider his explanations for the inconsistencies and omissions. In the absence of credible testimony, Puuree’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Puuree’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record to compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mongolia. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 224 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 224

To amend section 1977A of the Revised Statutes to equalize the remedies 
available to all victims of intentional employment discrimination, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mrs. Kennelly (for herself, Mrs. Mink, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Schroeder, Ms. 
 Pelosi, Mrs. Lowey of New York, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Fazio, Ms. Shepherd, 
     Ms. Furse, Mrs. Unsoeld, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Edwards of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly 
       to the Committees on Education and Labor and the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 1977A of the Revised Statutes to equalize the remedies 
available to all victims of intentional employment discrimination, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Remedies Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. EQUALIZATION OF REMEDIES.

    Section 1977A of the Revised Statutes, as added by section 102 of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking paragraph (3), and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
                (3), and
            (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``section--'' and all 
        that follows through the period, and inserting ``section, any 
        party may demand a jury trial.''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF ASSETS & LIABILITIES; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846581
<NAME> THE PRUDENTIAL VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      17,647,326
<SECURITIES>                                 1,820,690
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           225,829,505
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             225,829,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,851,964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 210,977,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               225,829,505
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,632,175
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,085,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                754,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            754,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   754,601
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

728 

CA 14-01436 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

ACQUEST WEHRLE, LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

TOWN OF AMHERST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

E. THOMAS JONES, WILLIAMSVILLE, DEMARIE & SCHOENBORN, P.C., BUFFALO

(JOSEPH DEMARIE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, BUFFALO (R. ANTHONY RUPP, III, OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered November 26, 2013. The order awarded plaintiff

attorney’s fees. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988;

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567; see

also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). 

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
946 A.2d 641

#### In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Laird M. WOLFE, Deceased. Petition of Linda D. Wolfe.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 4, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of April 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the issue set forth below.

> Whether damages recovered from a wrongful death action can be distributed to a decedent’s beneficiaries in the proportion they would take the personal estate of the decedent in the case of intestacy, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301, regardless of whether those beneficiaries personally suffered no pecuniary loss whatsoever?
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Edmundo PINTO-MACHORRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50169

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2011.

*837Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jacques Lawrence De La Mota, De La Mota & Company, Ltd., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hector Edmundo Pinto-Machorro (Pinto) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). Finding that Pinto had a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a minor, the district court enhanced his base offense level on account of a felony conviction for a crime of violence and sentenced him to 51 months in prison, which was within the guidelines range. Because he did not object to the enhancement, review is for plain error. *See United States v. MondragonSantiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009).

Pinto contends that the record did not establish definitively that he had been convicted of indecency with a child under Texas law. However, the record on appeal, as supplemented by documents filed by the Government, shows that Pinto was charged with committing the crime of indecency with a child by contact, an offense prohibited by Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a).

The community supervision order states that the offense for which Pinto received deferred adjudication was indecency with a child by contact. In the admonishment and waivers, Pinto pleaded nolo contendere to the “offense of indecency w/ child (contact),” an offense that the document specifically recited as being prohibited by § 21.11(a). A plea of nolo contendere under Texas law has the same effect as a guilty plea. *Duke v. Cockrell,*292 F.3d 414, 416 (5th Cir.2002). And contrary to Pinto’s assertion, there is in fact a plea, as this judicial confession was accepted by the state court as a plea. *See*Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.02(5) (West 2006). Additionally, the state indictment charging Pinto with committing the crime of indecency with a child by contact tracks the language of § 21.11(a)(1), which criminalizes conduct that this court has held to constitute a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2 — specifically, the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor. *See United States v. Ayala,*542 F.3d 494, 494-95 (5th Cir.2008).

Additionally, there is no merit to Pinto’s argument that the order of deferred adjudication did not constitute a conviction for enhancement purposes. A Texas deferred adjudication is a conviction. *United States v. Washington,*480 F.3d 309, 318 & n. 45 (5th Cir.2007).

Pinto’s Texas conviction was for a crime of violence. Accordingly, the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Duane W. LARSON, et ux., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 10-799.

Jan. 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.