alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 14 - 00233 - CR

________________________ JAAFAR ABDULLAH , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 2014 - 401987 ; Honorable John J. McClendon III , Presiding

February 20 , 201 5 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Following an open plea of guilty, Appellant, Jaafar Abdullah, was convicted of aggravated robbery 1 and sentenced to six years confinement. Pending before this Court is Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which he represents he wishes to withdraw his notice of appeal. As required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.03(a) (West 2011 ).2

the motion is signed by Appellant and his attorney. No decision of this Court having been delivered, the motion is g ranted and the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.
[Cite as Hazel v. Knab , 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608.]

H AZEL , A PPELLANT , v. K NAB , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Hazel v. Knab , 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608.] Habeas corpus—Dismissal of petiti on affirmed—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to include certified statement of inmate account balance in affidavit of indigency is fatal defect. (No. 2011-0825—Submitted Sept ember 7, 2011—Decided September 15, 2011.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3231.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Corey Hazel, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. As the court of a ppeals correctly held, Hazel’s petition was defective because although he filed an affi davit of indigency and sought waiver of prepayment of the court’s filing fees, he failed to include in his affidavit of indigency a statement setting forth the ba lance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, in violation of R.C. 2969.25(C). “The requi rements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White
v. Bechtel , 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Hazel’s subsequent filing of the statement did not cure the defect. See R.C. 2969.25(C);
see also Fuqua v. Williams , 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982, ¶ 9. And although Hazel attempts to excuse his noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) by citing a purported prison policy, which he attached to his reply brief, we cannot consider any evidence that is not part of the record on appeal.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 See State ex rel. Albourque v. Terry , 128 Ohio St.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-1913, 947 N.E.2d 169, ¶ 3. {¶ 2} Moreover, because Hazel either ra ised or could have raised his claims in a previous habeas corpus case, see Hazel v. Knab , 125 Ohio St.3d 1460, 2010-Ohio-2753, 928 N.E.2d 736, res judicata barr ed him from filing a successive habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. See Goins v. Pineda , 128 Ohio St.3d 358, 2011-Ohio-529, 944 N.E.2d 660. {¶ 3} Finally, because Hazel’s petition did not state a facially valid habeas corpus claim, the appellate court’s dis missal without prior notice was proper and in accordance with the basic, summary procedure of R.C. Chapter 2725. Wells v.
Hudson , 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 9; Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763. {¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Hazel’s habeas corpus petition, and we affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Corey Hazel, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney Genera l, and Hilda Rosenberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

______________________
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 7, 2016

p0906

Order 

Clerk

September 7, 2016

154359 & (4)(5)

MICHIGAN COMPREHENSIVE CANNABIS

LAW REFORM COMMITTEE, a/k/a 

MILEGALIZE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154359

COA: 334560

Ct of Claims: 16-000131-MM

SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF

ELECTIONS, and BOARD OF STATE 

CANVASSERS, Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals is treated as 

an application for leave to appeal the September 7, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals. 

The application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

consolidation is DENIED.
250 E Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20525 

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722 

To: Deborah Jeffrey 

 Inspector General 

From: Lori Giblin/s/

Chief Risk Officer 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending September 30, 2016 

Date: October 4, 2016 

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High-Dollar overpayments' reporting 

requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Appendix C. 

Appendix C requires agency heads to submit reports quarterly on High-Dollar 

overpayments to the Office of Inspector General. 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which will be completed in Q1 of FY 

2017. Therefore, during the reporting period covering 7/01/2016 through 09/30/2016, 

CNCS has not identified any high-dollar overpayments. 

This report upholds the Corporation’s commitment to carrying out the Executive Order’s 

goals of eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments remains vital for the 

Corporation. We continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of 

overpayments.
#### JOHN BARRY, III, KEVIN BESTICK, SUSAN BESTICK, GEORGE BRADY, PAMELA BRADY, BOBBY BROWN, CATHY BROWN, JOHN CARUSO, LAURA CARUSO, BARBARA KARINA CASSELL, JEFF CASSELL, FRANK CATANIA, LUDWIKA CERF, WILLIAM CERF, CHRISTINA CHAPPELL, DELANE CHAPPELL, JOE CHRISTENSEN, LAURA CLARK, SUZANNE DILLMAN, SUSAN EYERMANN, TIMOTHY EYERMANN, BRIAN FARRELL, MEGAN FARRELL, TIMOTHY FOLEY, KAY GREEN, ROBIN GREEN, TANNER GREEN, DANA JONES, KRISTI JONES, MEREDITH KISNER, WILLIAM KISNER, CHRISTOPHER LEE, MICHAEL LEWIS, TINA LEWIS, MICHAEL LUVUOLO, CLEVE THOMAS MASSON, PAULINE MARIE MASSON, FRAN METKIFF, WILLIAM METKIFF, DONNA NEELY, KEVIN NEELY, PAMELA O’BRYAN, WILLIAM O’BRYAN, CHARLES OTIS, ELAINE OTIS, DENNIS POWERS, ERIKA POWERS, GEORGE POWERS, LILLIAN POWERS, KATHLEEN ROBERTS, WILLIAM ROBERTS, JULIE ROOKSTOOL, DAVID CRAIG SALMON, NANCY SALMON, LINDA SCHUELLER, DONALD SLOVER, ELIZABETH SLOVER, SPECTRUMAX, LLC, MICHAEL STOPCZYNSKI, MICHELLE STOPCZYNSKI, SCOTT SWANN, ANDREY VARNUM, RICHARD VARNUM, JILL VOSS, JANE WALTER, and RUSSELL WALTER v. OCEAN ISLE PALMS, INC., OCEAN ISLE PALMS, LLC, COASTAL COMMUNITIES, INC., MARK A. SAUNDERS, DEBORAH BOODRO, DONALD HOWARTH, MAS PROPERTIES, LLC, THE MORTGAGE COMPANY OF BRUNSWICK, INC., BRENDAN GORDON, JAMES POWELL, JAMES POWELL APPRAISALS, LLC, LYNN RABELLO, BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, FOUR OAKS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, BB&T COLLATERAL SERVICE CORPORATION, CLIFTON L. PAINTER, BAXLEYSMITHWICK PLLC, and DOUGLAS BAXLEY

No. 378A14

Filed 18 December 2015

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b)(l) from opinions and orders granting motions to dismiss entered on 27 June 2011 and 13 June 2012 by Judge John R. Jolly, Jr. in Superior Court, Brunswick County. On 10 October 2014, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31(a) and (b)(2), and *477Rule 15(e)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Supreme Court on its own initiative certified the case for review prior to determination in the Court of Appeals. Heard in the Supreme Court on 18 March 2015.

*Hodges & Coxe, P.G., by C. Wes Hodges, II and Sarah R. Buzzard, for plaintiff-appellants.*

*Teague, Campbell, Dennis & Gorham, LLP, by Jacob H. Wellman and Natalie K. Isenberg, for defendant-appellees James Powell, James Powell Appraisals, LLC, and Lynn Rabello.*

*Poyner Spruill LLP, by J. Nicholas Ellis and Caroline P. Mackie, for defendant-appellees Branch Banking and Trust Company and BB&T Collateral Service Corporation.*

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., _*N.C. _, S.E.2d _ (2015) (375A14), the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Justice EDMUNDS concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons stated in his opinion in *Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., _*N.C. _, _ S.E.2d. _ (2015) (375A14).

Justice HUDSON and Justice BEASLEY concur in part and dissent in part for the reasons stated in Justice Hudson’s opinion in *Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation,*Inc., _ N.C. _ , _ S.E.2d _ (2015) (375A14).
#### § 128-48.001 Definitions.
#### § 102-34.200 What is official use of Government motor vehicles?

Official use of a Government motor vehicle is using a Government motor vehicle to perform your agency's mission(s), as authorized by your agency.
#### § 105-64.208 What special conditions apply to release of medical records?

Medical records containing information that may have an adverse effect upon a person will be released only to a physician designated in writing by you, or by your guardian or conservator. Medical records in an Official Personnel Folder (OPF) fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and will be referred to OPM for a response.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50833

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN CHARLESTON ALLEN HARRIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-202-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Charleston 

Allen Harris, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Harris has filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as Harris’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50833 Document: 00514529061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2018
No. 17-50833

2

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50833 Document: 00514529061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2018
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National compensation survey.State and local government. Toledo, OH.**
 
2007 | 2008
 
SuDoc Number:L 2.121/35:T 57/
Item Number:0768-B-55 (online) | 0768-B-5(online)
CGP systemNumber:000746487
 
August 28, 2019
#### § 105-64.803 How will my appeal be handled?

The Privacy Act Officer will consult with legal counsel and the appropriate GSA officials concerning your appeal. The decision will be made by the Senior Agency Official for Privacy. The decision will be sent within 30 workdays of the appeal being received by the privacy office. The decision provided in the appeal letter is the final recourse.
#### § 109-26.501 Purchase of new motor vehicles.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The safety review**
 
2008:05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12
2009:01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.C 76/3:28-2/
Item Number:1062-C-26 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000641439
 
December 18, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<CAPTION>

<ARTICLE>  7
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET  AND  STATEMENT  INCOME  FOR ANCHOR NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>           5,910,805,000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                      0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                        0
<EQUITIES>                         5,326,000
<MORTGAGE>                       500,424,000
<REAL-ESTATE>                     24,000,000
<TOTAL-INVEST>                 8,226,892,000
<CASH>                         1,294,949,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                         0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>           940,794,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                24,305,687,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                8,076,822,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                        0
<POLICY-OTHER>                             0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                      0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                  209,803,000
<COMMON>                           3,511,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                       760,903,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  24,305,687,000
<PREMIUMS>                                 0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>              125,631,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                   884,000
<OTHER-INCOME>                   103,683,000
<BENEFITS>                        99,894,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>       27,604,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>               9,088,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   58,197,000
<INCOME-TAX>                      21,009,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               37,188,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      37,188,000
<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>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6370

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RANDY SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-327-4, CA-00-3658-8-13) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Randy Smith appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000); and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. United States , Nos. CR-96-327-4; CA-00-3658-8-13 (D.S.C. Jan. 19 & Feb. 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15302]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6608-3]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared May 29, 2000 through June 02, 
2000 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 
309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA 
comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 
564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 
FR 20157).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. RD-FRA-A53055-00 Rating EC2, Proposed Rule for the Use of 
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in the United States.
    Summary: EPA expressed concern regarding the lack of information on 
funding the quiet zones and requested that more flexibility be provided 
to those communities that have existing quiet zones.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-UAF-E11046-FL Tyndall Air Force Base, Implementation, 
Proposed Conversion of Two F-15 Fighter Squadrons to F-22 Fighter 
Squadrons, FL.
    Summary: EPA believes that the proposed action will not pose 
significant and/or long-term adverse environmental consequences.

    Dated: June 13, 2000.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-15302 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 67 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 67

 To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to extend 
             the loan guarantee program for Indian housing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

 Mr. Bereuter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to extend 
             the loan guarantee program for Indian housing.

    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 ``Indian Housing Loan Guarantee 
Extension Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR INDIAN HOUSING.

    Section 184(i) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
(12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a(i)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
        inserting the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Limitation on outstanding aggregate principal 
                amount.--Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs 
                (A) and (B), the Secretary may enter into commitments 
                to guarantee loans under this section in each fiscal 
                year with an aggregate outstanding principal amount not 
                exceeding such amount as may be provided in 
                appropriation Acts for such fiscal year.''; and
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``each of fiscal years 
        1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``each fiscal 
        year''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 301-10.101 What classes of common carrier accommodations are available? Common carriers frequently update their levels of service and use various terminologies to distinguish those levels of service. For the purposes of this regulation, the classes of common carrier transportation are categorized as coach class, premium economy class, business class, and first class. Note 1 to § 301-10.101 :
If an airline flight has only two classes of accommodations available, *i.e.,* two distinctly different seating types (such as girth and pitch) and the front of the aircraft is termed “premium economy class” or higher by the airline and the tickets are fare coded as premium economy class or higher, then the front of the aircraft is deemed to be other than coach class. Alternatively, if an airline flight has only two seating sections available but equips both with one type of seating, (*i.e.,* seating girth and pitch are the same in both sections of the aircraft), and the seats in the front of the aircraft are fare coded as full fare economy class, and only restricted economy fares are available in the back of the aircraft, then the entire aircraft is to be classified as coach class. In this second situation, qualifying for other than coach class travel is not required to purchase an unrestricted full fare economy seat in the front of the aircraft as the entire aircraft is considered “coach class.”
[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55702, Sept. 12, 2022]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No.'s 333-52704, 333-52716, 333-59795 and 333-29745) and Form S-3
(No.'s 333-87103, 333-68197, 333-52971, and 333-47777) of Daou Systems, Inc. of
our report dated February 13, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Daou Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 31, 2003
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:23-cv-20045-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:23-cv-20045-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:23-cv-20045-RKA Document 17-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 3 of 3