alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

Independent Accountants' Awareness Letter
================================================================================

October 31, 2000

BankFirst Corporation
625 Market Street
Knoxville, Tennessee  37902

We have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the AICPA, the
unaudited interim financial information of BankFirst Corporation (the "Company")
as of September 30, 2000 and for the quarter and year-to-date periods ended
September 30, 2000 and 1999 as indicated in our report dated October 31, 2000.
Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which was included in your
quarterly report on Form 10-Q, is being incorporated by reference in the Form
S-8 Registration Statement.

We also are aware that our report referred to above, under 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 the Act.

                                       Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
#### § 822.23 Is the information in my submission considered confidential?

We consider the content of your submission confidential until we have approved your postmarket surveillance plan. After we have approved your plan, the contents of the original submission and any amendments, supplements, or reports may be disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. We will continue to protect trade secret and confidential commercial information after your plan is approved. We will not disclose information identifying individual patients. You may wish to indicate in your submission which information you consider trade secret or confidential commercial.
# C_2017121EN.01002501.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Neka Novin v Council

(Case T-436/14) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality))

(2017/C 121/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), and on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as communicated by a notice of 15 March 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Council to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6799

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTIAN DIAMOND BYRD, a/k/a Diamond,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:14-cr-00455-TDC-1)

Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian Diamond Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Thomas Patrick Windom, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christian Diamond Byrd appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Byrd, No. 8:14-cr-00455-TDC-1 (D. Md. June 5, 2017). 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
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 November 10, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Michael BrodskyMichael BrodskyChief Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2008
    By:
    /s/ James A. BurkJames A. BurkChief Financial Officer
# C_2015221EN.01001301.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — La Zaragozana v OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN’S)

(Case T-197/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark GREEN’S - Earlier national word mark AMBAR GREEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Charles Cooper Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2014 (Case R 1284/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between La Zaragozana, SA and Charles Cooper Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders La Zaragozana, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders La Zaragozana, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                   AGREEMENT


         The undersigned, USA Detergents, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and Frederick R. Adler, an individual ("Adler"), hereby agree as
follows:

         1. The Company desires to retain the services of Adler for the next
three years, commencing on January 1, 1998, to assist the Company in exploring
the possibility of strategic and/or financing alternatives for the Company,
which may include any of the following: (i) the sale by the Company of any of
its securities, whether debt or equity, to any person, entity or group of
persons or entities, in one transaction or a series of related transactions, or
any other form of investment in the Company (in one transaction or a series of
related transactions) by any person, entity or group; or (ii) the
reorganization, merger, combination, share exchange or consolidation of the
Company with or into another corporation or the merger, reorganization,
combination, share exchange or consolidation of another corporation into the
Company; or (iii) any sale, lease, exchange or other transfer (in one
transaction or a series of related transactions) of all, or substantially all
the assets of the Company to any person, entity or group of persons or
entities; or (iv) any transaction, financing or issuance of securities which is
of a similar nature to any of the foregoing or which Adler in his discretion
believes may be appropriate for the Company to consider.

         2. Adler agrees to so assist the Company for the next three years.
Adler shall devote such time and attention in the performance of his services
hereunder, as Adler in his discretion deems necessary and/or appropriate.

         3. In consideration of the sum of $175,000 and of the services to be
provided by Adler as provided above, the Company hereby grants to Adler a
warrant to purchase 350,000 shares of the common stock, $.01 par value per
share, of the Company, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, at a per share
purchase price of $7.875, being the closing price of the Common Stock on the
Nasdaq National Market on the date hereof. The $175,000 purchase price for the
Warrant may be paid, at Adler's option, in cash or by delivery of a promissory
note in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of
the 26th day of December, 1997.


                                                  USA Detergents, Inc.


                                             By:  /s/ Uri Evan
                                                  -------------------------

                                                  /s/ Frederick R. Adler
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Frederick R. Adler
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                34,204
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        172,474
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      34,204
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       206,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             122,146
<OTHER-SE>                            84,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         206,678
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (498)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             498
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.00



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANDALL FERGUSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-55102

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02043-PA-SH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and submitted August 8, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior

District Judge.** 

Randall Ferguson appeals the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo’s motion

for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we

reverse and remand.

FILED

AUG 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
-2-

Ferguson brought suit against Wells Fargo under a provision of the Fair

Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), for failing to accurately report to

TransUnion that there was no bankruptcy on his account. 

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), a furnisher of credit information must

investigate and report “[a]fter receiving notice . . . of a dispute with regard to the

completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer

reporting agency.” Here, Wells Fargo furnished information about Wells Fargo

accounts to TransUnion, the credit reporting agency, either originally, in response

to TransUnion’s inquiry, or both. Ferguson disputed to TransUnion the

completeness and accuracy of the information about his Wells Fargo account. 

Because Ferguson in fact disputed that account, Wells Fargo was obligated to

reasonably investigate and accurately report its findings back to TransUnion. 

The district court erred by granting summary judgment because there are

genuine disputes of fact as to whether Wells Fargo accurately reported the account. 

See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009)

(summary judgment is only appropriate where there are "no genuine disputes of

material fact") (internal quotation omitted). In particular, there is a dispute as to

whether it was correct for Wells Fargo to leave the Consumer Information Index

space blank instead of entering the Q code on the form it sent to TransUnion.
-3-

The district court did not reach Wells Fargo’s partial motion for summary

judgment on the issue of willfulness and we leave that motion for the district court

to rule on in the first instance. 

We REVERSE the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo’s motion for

summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings.
§ 74.2304 FD&C Red No. 4. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive FD&C Red No. 4 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1304(a)(1) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* FD&C Red No. 4 may be safely used for coloring externally applied cosmetics in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Certification.* All batches of FD&C Red No. 4 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
T TE C

2011 J 6

DOCKET 0.: -0 -201 J-002

R sp nd nt

RA

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

FI IN

nJuo 1- 01 ,tb Partie til d .oJ inL Li nd dminislrali rnpl int

rlain paragT ph f th

1chang . Th 1 lh t Labl in th pp ndi • b

nd

up 1 d t Ilh currenL

.....,J.,.,.,.lL:JD to comply °th all ofth term ofth

imrncdiu1 Iy up n r 'ceipt y R sp nd nL f titi Am nd I n n1 Agr m ot and Final Ord r.

,2012

ffi r

--1-.:."'--__Da of »YLl U-
CERTlFlCATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the original ofthe attached ORDER GRANTING

MOTlON TO AMENI> CONSENT AGREEMENT ANI> FINAL ORI>ER in the matter of

MARATHON OIL COMPANY; I>OCKET NO.: CAA-08-20J 1-0025, was filed with the

Regional Hearing Clerk on June 18,20 I2.

Further, the undersigned certifies thut a Irue and correct copy of the document was

delivered to David Rochlin, Senior Enforcement Attorney, U. S. EPA - Region 8.1595

Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. True and correct copies of the aforementioned

document was placed in the United States mail on June 18,2012, to

Rebecca K. Skiba, Senior Attorney

Marathon Oil Company

5555 San Felipe

Houston, Texas 77056

June 18,2012 "Ltc (J <loAm ;4/ Tina ArtemiS ..,

Paralegal/Regional Hearing Clerk
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 13

- 01052

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 11CR2795

Style: Danny Jarrod Hamilton

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : August 19, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for Extensi on of Submission Date

Party filing motion: The State of Texas

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If doc ument is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdict ion, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

Date: August 21, 2014
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7082** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. NORMAN ALAN KERR , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00290

- NCT

- 1 ; 1:11

- cv 00382

- NCT

- JEP )

Submitted : October 16, 2012 Decided: October 23, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Norman Alan Kerr , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang , Angela Hewlett Miller , Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Norman Alan Kerr seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion without prejudice to his right to refile the motion on the proper forms following the concl usion of his direct appeal. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012)
. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be d ismissed and advised Kerr that the failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315

- 16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841 , 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985). Kerr has waived appellate

* The district court clerk treated Kerr’s notice of appeal as seeking to appeal the district court’s March 23, 2012 order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Kerr’s § 2255 motion. To the extent Kerr seeks in the present appeal to chal lenge the district court’s rulings at resentencing in May 2012 , his arguments are more properly raised in the pending direct appeal of the district court’s amended judgment. That appeal has been assigned case No. 12

- 4775.3 review of the district court’s order by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certifica te of appealability, deny Kerr’s motion to appoint counsel, 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 decisiona l
process. DISMISSED
Order entered February 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01282-CV

CHARLENE FULLERTON TIGERT, Appellant

V.

TOMMY RAY TIGERT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-08-1316-02

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s February 21, 2013 agreed motion for an extension of time to file 

a reply brief/cross-appellee’s brief. We ORDER the reply brief/cross-appellee’s brief tendered 

to this Court by appellant on February 26, 2013 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
                                                  ---------------------------------------
                                                     NUMBER        PERCENT     EQUIVALENT
                                                    OF SHARES    OUTSTANDING     SHARES
                                                  -----------    -----------   -----------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>           <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                             2,300,000      100.00%      2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                          1,316,931       92.82%      1,222,319
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock       15,310,943      100.00%     15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                     11,242,857      100.00%     11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                      4,323,874      100.00%      4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                       6,000,000      100.00%      6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                     (6,588)      43.47%         (2,864)
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued         145,737       87.55%        127,598
   Warrants Exercised                                 130,513      100.00%        130,513
                                                  -----------                 -----------
                                                   40,764,267                  40,655,240

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                            40,655,240

NET LOSS                                                                      (25,072,717)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                            $     (0.62)
                                                                              ===========
</TABLE>