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

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT

 

Board of Directors 

Sistersville Bancorp, Inc. 

 

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2002, and the relatedconsolidated statements of cash flows for the nine-month period ended, and the consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the nine- and three-month periods then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of theCompany’s management. 

 

We conducted our review in accordancewith standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible forfinancial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regardingthe financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America. 

 

We have previouslyaudited, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes instockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated April 12, 2002, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

 

/s/ S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C. 

 

Wheeling, West Virginia 

January 31, 2003
--

August 10, 2010 

~ ,.Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 


Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 


P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Mfordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

_ Protection and-Affordable CareActr(PRACA). ­

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1,2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

area (Le. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

. "does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

. employee. 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

The Rule needs to be clear,reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether 

a group health plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. 

Sinc~~y, A 

/7~5IiJuto/ Karla S Buckrop D.C. 

DR. KARLA BUCKROp, D.O. 

331 WEST 4TH SUITE A 

MILAN. iWNOIS 61264
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16- 40818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RAMON RESENDEZ -GONZALEZ, also known as Ramon Gonzales Resendez, also known as Ramon Gonzalez Resendez, also known as Ramon Rezendez Gonzalez,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CR- 25 -1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Resendez

Gonzalez 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). Resendez-Gonzalez h as filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief, Re sendez- Gonzalez’s response, and the relevant

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED May 4, 2017 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 16-40818 Document: 00513979841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2017No. 16- 40818

2 portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40818 Document: 00513979841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2017
12/12/97 8700.1 CHG 17

i

VOLUME 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1. GENERAL CONCEPTS

Page

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INFORMATION

Section 1. General ......................................................................................................... 1-1

Section 2. Handbook Background and Information ...................................................... 1-7

CHAPTER 2. FAA AND FLIGHT STANDARDS HISTORY AND THE PUBLIC LAW

Section 1. History of the Federal Aviation Administration ........................................... 2-1

Section 2. Public Law and Responsibility for Public Safety ......................................... 2-7

Section 3. Regulatory Responsibility ............................................................................ 2-15

CHAPTER 3. THE GENERAL PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OR ACCEPTANCE.................... 3-1 

CHAPTER 4. THE GENERIC PROCESS FOR CERTIFICATING ORGANIZATIONS

Section 1. General Information ..................................................................................... 4-1

Section 2. The Certification Process ............................................................................. 4-5

CHAPTER 5. PREPARATION OF FAA OPERATING CERTIFICATES................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6. GENERAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Section 1. Clinics and Meetings .................................................................................... 6-1

Section 2. Certificates of Temporary Sojourn ............................................................... 6-9

Section 3. Filing of Petitions for Rulemaking or Exemptions and Submission of Comments

on Notices of Proposed Rulemaking ............................................................ 6-15

Section 4. General Aviation Operations Handbook Bulletins and Flight Standards

Information Bulletins .................................................................................... 6-21
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.47

May 26, 2003


Chet Ritch


Dear Chet,

RE:      EMPLOYEE SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN AND EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN

In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan ("the Preference Share
Plan"), you are hereby advised that the Grant Date is June 4, 2003 for benefits
you have accrued during the year ended 31 December 2002.

Accordingly you are granted 194 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the
option to purchase an equal number of Preference Shares at a price of CI$7.46
each, which has been calculated in accordance to the terms of the Preference
Share Plan. If you intend to exercise this option, then payment must be received
in full no later than the close of business on July 4, 2003.

As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan ("the Option Plan"), you will also
be granted, as of June 30, 2003, the option to purchase 970 Ordinary Shares in
the Company. These options are exercisable in accordance to the terms of the
Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity to obtain an equal amount of
options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to the terms
of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional
Preference Shares before June 30, 2003.

Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful
year for Consolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.

Yours sincerely,



/s/ Frederick McTaggart
Frederick W. McTaggart
President and COO
# Jason Dunham Seizes Illicit Arms in Gulf of Aden

/ Published Aug. 30, 2018

**MANAMA, Bahrain --**The guided-missile destroyer USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109), deployed to U.S. 5th Fleet, seized an illicit shipment of arms from a stateless skiff in the international waters of the Gulf of Aden, on Aug. 28. 

The skiff was determined to be stateless following a flag verification boarding, conducted in accordance with international law. Illicit cargo discovered by the Dunham’s visit, board, search and seizure (VBSS) team included over 1,000 weapons. 

“Our ship routinely conducts maritime security operations with our highly-trained VBSS team incorporating both on and off ship intelligence assets to help locate vessels,” said Cmdr. John Hamilton, Dunham’s commanding officer. “Ensuring the free flow of commerce for legitimate traffic and securing the sea lanes of communication continue to be paramount to the U.S. Navy and its regional partners and allies, and I am proud of Jason Dunham’s Sailors for accomplishing the mission.” 

Dunham located a dhow transferring covered packages to a skiff on Aug. 27. On Aug. 28, Dunham conducted a flag verification boarding and determined the skiff to be a stateless vessel. Subsequently, the boarding team discovered a cache of over 1,000 AK-47 automatic rifles. The skiff’s engines were inoperable, and the distressed mariners were brought aboard Dunham as part of a safety-of-life-at-sea (SOLAS) operation. The mariners were evaluated by the ship’s medical personnel and were uninjured. 

The original source of the weapons has not yet been identified. The weapons are in U.S. custody awaiting final disposition.

The mariners were transferred to the Yemeni Coast Guard.

The U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations encompasses nearly 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean. The region is comprised of 20 countries and includes three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Babal-Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.

For more news from Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/5th Fleet, visit http://www.navy.mil/local/cusnc/.
----

(2004/C 88 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Charges in the tourist industry

The ever closer union of the peoples of the Member States must find expression in the free movement of persons and goods in Union countries.

Under the Schengen Agreement, European citizens are entitled to move freely on Union territory without being subjected to national constraints.

In some parts of Italy (for example Tuscany) many local authorities require tourists to pay entrance fees, thus restricting de facto the free movement of persons at no charge.

Does the Commission agree that, without overstepping its powers, the Union should intervene in order to guarantee the safe, free movement of persons at no charge on Union territory and call on Member States to remove the difficulties currently preventing it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The information provided in the question does not allow the Commission to have a clear and complete assessment of the problem referred.

The Commission would like to recall from a general point of view that the Court of Justice has ruled, in its judgment of 16 January 2003 (case C-388/01) with regard to entrance fees to monuments etc., that advantageous rates discriminating between foreign and national tourists without any direct link with the need to protect either public order, security or health (see Article 46 EC) or any other overriding requirement in the general interest are incompatible with Community law (Articles 12 and 49 EC).

----
EXHIBIT 10.24


 


GOLDEN


NUGGET


 


ROBERT KOCIENSKI


Executive Vice
President


Chief Financial
Officer


 


 


 


March 21, 2000


 


 


Ms. Margaret M.
Carnell


Elizabeth
Properties Trust


1912 South
Maryland Parkway


Las Vegas,
NV  89104


 


RE:  Lease Agreement - Elizabeth Properties Trust
and Golden Nugget, Inc.


 


Dear Margaret:


 


Pursuant to the
terms of the lease between Elizabeth Properties Trust and Golden Nugget, Inc.,
effective May 1, 2000, rent on the leased property will be increased to
$309,500.00 per annum, payable $25,791.67 monthly. Rent will remain at this
level until May 1, 2003, at which time rental increases pursuant to Section 4.2
of the Lease shall commence.


 


Please execute
below and return to me at your first convenience.


 


Sincerely,


 


ROBERT KOCIENSKI


Robert Kocienski


 


BK/ljd


 


ELIZABETH
PROPERTIES TRUST


 


	
  By

  	
  MARGARET M. CARNELL, TRUSTEE

  
	
   

  	
  Margaret M. Carnell

  



 


 


 


 


POST OFFICE BOX 610, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89125, (702)
385-7111
#### Eli B. Northrup, Appellant, v. William D Collingwood and another, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disburements. Mem. by

Barber J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE YEAR ENDING APRIL 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,873
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,024
<PP&E>                                         650,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 557,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          531,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,088,001
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2,016,911)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    557,141
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (49,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,407)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.001)
        

</TABLE>
HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/davis_bacon_and_labor_standards...

1 of 3 1/16/2019, 12:42 PM
HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/davis_bacon_and_labor_standards...

2 of 3 1/16/2019, 12:42 PM
HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/davis_bacon_and_labor_standards...

3 of 3 1/16/2019, 12:42 PM
----

(2004/C 84 E/1022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0962/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   The increasing dangers to public health and the environment caused by the increase in emissions of small particulate matter from motor vehicle engines

Source: The 11 March 2004 edition of ‘De Volskrant’, a Dutch newspaper

----
08-10-10 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Departrilent ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCll0--9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 801.6 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for .Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). -'> . ~ 

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1. 2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges. Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of"benefits." Consumers view their health plan 


beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 


It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 


application. For example, ifan employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 


area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 


does that mean a loss ofgrandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the .. 


employee. 


Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 


remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 


difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population ofexcluded 


individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 


legislation. 


The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities il!vblved in determining whether 


a-group health plan is "in or -out." ihe decisions~fl1e-federal govemmenfniakes today will .­


determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 


a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 


getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 


delivering on its promises to retain their support. 


Th~ you for the 0fo~ty to comment on this regulation. 

~k~· , • ~ : .,:~, • ....~ "! ',.; ,.:*.~ . ~..., r~ ,.:,'.' .: '. , ~ C>~ "".,.... tt " ~ 

', .... 

'~ , ".
#### Ray Blodgett, appellee, v. Swanson Brothers et al., appellants.

Filed November 10, 1920.

No. 21119.

Pleading: Motion to Strike: Waiver. A motion to strike a petition for want of verification is waived by tbe filing of an answer before a ruling on tbe motion.

Appeal from the district court for Adams county: William C. Dorsey, Judge.

*Affirmed on condition.*

*192
      *J. E. Addie,*for appellants.

*Walter M. Grow, contra.*

Letton, J.

This action was begun in justice court to recover $83.97 for work and labor, and $13.90 for goods paid for but not delivered. The justice found defendants were entitled to a set-off of $17.20, and found for plaintiff in the sum of $68.75. Defendants appealed to the district court. The petition in that court was unverified. A motion to strike was filed by defendants, but not ruled upon. Afterwards defendants filed a general denial and counterclaim. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $97.87 with interest, amounting to $101.52. Defendants appeal.

The petition in the district court pleaded an item of $18.72 due plaintiff upon a settlement, in addition to the items sued upon in justice court. No motion was made to strike this item as not within the issues below.

The principal controversy at the trial was as to certain charges made against plaintiff by defendants for storage and work on his cars. There was a conflict of evidence as to these items. The jury settled them in favor of plaintiff, and we see no reason to disturb its findings in this respect.

It is argued that the judgment should be reversed because the petition was unverified, but defendants waived verification by the filing of the answer.

The amount of the verdict is complained of. According to plaintiff there was $18.72 due him on a settlement made on January 2,1918. Afterwards there was due him $83.97 for labor, and $13.90 for parts paid for but not furnished by defendants, making a total of $116.59. In addition to the credits he allows in the petition, his own testimony is to the effect that on January 8 he received a check of $15 for which no credit was given. The verdict, therefore, is excessive to the amount of $15 with interest from January 8, 1918. The amount being fixed and determined, the judgment will be *193reversed and the canse remanded for further proceedings, unless the plaintiff enters a remittitur of $15 with interest from January 8,1918, within 20 days, in which case it will stand affirmed.

Affirmed on condition.