alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2


                       Report of Independent Accountants

            Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)
            One Wachovia Center
            301 South College Street, DC-7
            Charlotte, NC 28288

            U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)
            Corporate Trust Department
            100 Wall Street
            New York, NY 10005


            Re:   STRATS Trust For JPMorgan Chase Capital XVII Securities,
                  Series 2005-2 (the "Trust")

            Ladies and Gentlemen:

            We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities,
            Inc. (the "Depositor") and U.S. Bank National Association, (the
            "Trustee" and Together with the Depositor, the "Management") that
            the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
            respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as
            of September 26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement
            dated as of August 22, 2005 (together, the "Trust Agreement"), in
            respect of the STRATS Trust For JPMorgan Chase Capital XVII
            Securities, Series 2005-2 (the "Trust"), during the period covered
            by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf
            of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Annual
            Report"). Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust
            Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
            Management's assertions based on our examination.

            Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards
            established by the American Institute of Certified Public
            Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
            evidence about the Depositor's and the Trustee's compliance with
            the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as
            considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
            examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

            In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in
            all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period
            covered by the Annual Report and Management's assertions with
            respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material
            respects, for the year ended December 31, 2006.


            /s/ Aston Bell, CPA

            New York, New York
            March 13, 2007
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-30154 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

3,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant,

CHARLES R. SANDERS,

Claimant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-967)

_________________________________________________________________ November 29, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

C harles R. Sanders appeals the judgment in favor of the

Government, following a bench trial, in a 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)

civil forfeiture proceeding. Sanders contends that the district

court erred by finding that the Government showed probable cause to

b elieve that the $3,000 was intended to facilitate a dr ug-- 2 -

trafficking offense, based on his assertion that the evidence

presented by the Government was not believable. Needless to say,

we will not disturb the district court’s credibility

determinations. S ee United St ates v. Land, Property Currently

Recorded in Name of Neff , 960 F.2d 561, 563 (5th Cir. 1992).

Sanders’ other contentions are also without merit. The

Government’s filing of a judici al complaint 50 months after the

seizure was not an unreasonable delay, considering its mistaken

belief that Sanders previously had received notice of the

administrative forfeiture. S ee United States v. $17,420 in United

States Currency
, No. 94-10711, at 3-4 (5th Cir. May 2, 1995)

(unpublished); see also 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.3 (unpu blished opinions

issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent).

Sanders’ contention that the forfeiture violated his right to

be free from do uble jeopardy, because he has been punished

criminally for the conduct referenced in the forfeiture, is without

merit. S ee United States v. Ursery
,

___ U.S.
___, 116 S. Ct. 2135,

2147-49 (1996). Next, Sanders’ claim of perjury regarding the

location of the funds is without merit because their location is

not material a nd had no bearing on the outcome of the case. S ee

United States v. Dunniga n , ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 1111, 1116

(1993). Finally, Sanders was not forced to incriminate himself

when he was required to testify at the forfeiture trial regarding- 3 -

his drug-trafficking offenses. S ee United States v. Little Al

, 712

F.2d 133, 135-36 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.64    
    


[AspenTechnology Letterhead/Logo]  


August 18,
2003 


Manolis
E. Kotzabasakis

Senior Vice President, Engineering Business Unit 


Dear
Manolis: 


This
letter amendment references the letter agreement between you and AspenTech dated June 24, 2003 (the "Agreement") regarding your FY04 Executive Compensation Plan. Under the terms of the
Agreement, AspenTech agreed that it would grant you an option to purchase the number of shares of AspenTech common stock specified in the Agreement, contingent upon stockholder approval of the Advent
transaction (the "Option"). As you know, the Advent transaction was approved by AspenTech stockholders and closed on August 14, 2003. 


AspenTech
acknowledges that you have voluntarily agreed to reduce the number of shares subject to the Option to which you were entitled in order to make more options available for the general employee
option pool. You hereby confirm, by execution of this letter amendment, that the option granted to you on August 18, 2003 for 298,488 shares of AspenTech common stock constitutes full
satisfaction of AspenTech's obligations under the Agreement to grant the Option and that the terms of the Agreement do not entitle you to any additional stock option grants. All other terms of the
Agreement, including those contingent upon the closing of the Advent transaction, remain in full force and effect. 



	Best regards,	 	 	 	 
	

/s/  HELEN MOYE      	
 	

/s/  MANOLIS KOTZABASAKIS      	
 	

Sept. 26, 2003
	
	 	
	 	

	Helen Moye	 	Manolis E. Kotzabasakis	 	Date
	Sr. VP Human Resources

Aspen Technology, Inc.	 	Senior Vice President, Engineering Business Unit	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.64
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 8, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00570

- CR

Jes se NAJERA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CR

- 4704 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On February 26, 2018, a ppe llant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel . Attached to her motion was a copy of a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967) and a copy of a letter informing her client of various rights. Although the brief was attached to the motion as an exhibit, the brief was not filed in this court as a separate document

. See Anders , 368 U.S. at 744 (indicating request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief).

Moreover, counsel’s letter to her client fails to comply with Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) because it does not inform appellant of appellant’s pro se right to

seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare appellant’s appeal frivolous

. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

- 20. The letter also does not establish whether counsel took concrete measures “to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate re cord” because the letter does not indicate whether a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record was provided by counsel to appellant. See id . at 320. The letter should further advise appellant that the form motion should be filed within ten da ys, so that he may timely effectuate his right. See id.

We therefore ORDER appellant’s counsel to file a copy of his brief as a separate

document in this court on or before March 19, 2018

. We further ORDER appellant’s counsel

to provide a letter to appellant complying with Kelly v. State on or before March 19, 2018

. The letter should inform appellant of the above mentioned rights and include a copy of a form motionfor pro se access to the appellate record. Appellant is also ORDERED to file a response in this

court on or before March 23, 2018 that such letter was provided to appellant

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
No. 53847.

#### I. Bauer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150363-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT

 

KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc.

Las Vegas, NV

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-170222) of our report dated March 30, 2011 with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements  of KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and for the year then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

/s/ Marcum LLP

 

Marcum LLP

 

New York, NY

March 30, 2011

 

----
No. 61195.

protests 104287-K, etc. (New York).

#### William H. Emig et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was, therefore, sustained.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.18

ATTACHED DOCUMENT
CERTIFICATE OF ORGANIZATION OF
INSPIRATION MEDIA OF TEXAS, LLC
The undersigned, as Secretary of State of Texas, hereby certifies that the
attached Articles of Organization for the above named company have been received
in this office and are found to conform to law.
Filed:         MARCH 16, 2001
Effective:     MARCH 16, 2001
Henry Cuellar
Secretary of State

                            ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION

                                       OF

                         INSPIRATION MEDIA OF TEXAS, LLC


        1. The name of the limited liability company ("Company") is "OnePlace,
LLC". The period of duration of the Company shall expire on December 31, 2050.

        2. The purpose for which the Company is organized is the transaction of
any or all lawful business for which limited liability companies may be
organized under the Texas Limited Liability Company Act.

        3. The address of the Company's initial registered office in the State
of Texas is 545 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 450, Irving, Texas 75062. The
name of the Company's initial registered agent at such address is Greg Anderson.

        4. The Company shall be managed by one manager. The name and mailing
address of the manager is as follows:

               NAME:                                      MAILING ADDRESS:
               ----                                       ---------------
               Salem Media Corporation                    4880 Santa Rosa Road
                                                          Suite 300
                                                          Camarillo, CA 93012

        5. The Company is being organized pursuant to a Plan of Conversion. The
converting entity is Inspiration Media of Texas, Inc., a corporation
incorporated in Texas on July 24, 1995 and whose address is: 4880 Santa Rosa
Road, Suite 300, Camarillo, CA 93012.

        6. These Articles of Organization shall be effective on March 9, 2001.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Articles of
Organization effective as of March 9, 2001.

                                            SALEM MEDIA CORPORATION,



<PAGE>   2

                                            a New York Corporation

                                            By:  /s/ Jonathan L. Block
                                                --------------------------------
                                                   Jonathan L. Block,
                                                   Vice President
# Official Journal L 174/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 174 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6530 June 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 174

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6530 June 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/951 of 24 May 2022 amending the implementing technical standards laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 as regards benchmark portfolios, reporting templates and reporting instructions to be applied in the Union for the reporting referred to in Article 78(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/951 of 24 May 2022 amending the implementing technical standards laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 as regards benchmark portfolios, reporting templates and reporting instructions to be applied in the Union for the reporting referred to in Article 78(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 64714.

#### Ziel & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/452 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grape shears similar in all material respects to those the subject of *John H. Graham & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 67, C.D. 2022), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY MIKE TORRES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73356 

15-70152 

Agency No. A205-536-414 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 8, 2017

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE,** District Judge.

1. The only evidence in the record that Torres’s 1993 kidnapping and 

beating was “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or 

acquiescence of a public official” is Torres’s statement that Delmar Mugel, his 

main assailant, said he was a police officer. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). The record 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for 

the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

thus does not “compel[] a contrary conclusion” to the BIA’s determination that 

Torres failed to establish that Mugel was a public official. Arteaga v. Mukasey, 

511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Nor does the record compel a contrary conclusion to the BIA’s 

determination that Torres’s fear of future harm was too speculative. Cf. Haile v. 

Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of future harm not 

speculative where petitioner presented evidence of recent persecution of her father 

and danger faced by political dissidents).

2. Torres waived his challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen 

and his motion for reconsideration by failing to raise these issues in his briefing. 

Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

DENIED AND DISMISSED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEBORAH GEISMAR,

Appellant,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1912

[January 6, 2022]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph G. Marx, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 502019CA007523XXXMB.

Margery E. Golant of Margery E. Golant, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

appellant.

Lauren G. Raines and Tara M. Petzoldt of Bradley Arant Boult 

Cummings LLP, Tampa, for appellee Citibank, N.A.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# mSTRIC T ATTORNEY' S OFFIC E 3 3 » &424 TM Judicia l District s

COUNTIE S O F BUVNC O • BUBNKr r • IXAN O • 8A M SAB A 

# Wile y B . McAfe e Distric t Attorne y Marc h 05 , 201 5 Mr . Jeffer y

D . Kyl e Cler k o f Cour t o f Appeal s P. O . Bo x

1245 7 Austin , T X7871 1 Re : Cas eNo . 03-15-00127-CR ; Aaro n Josep h Hoe s v . Th eStat eo f

Texa s Appea l fro m Caus eNo . CR0116 7i n th e33r d Distric t Cour t o f Blanc o Count y Dea r Mr . Kyle : Pleas eaccep t

thi s lette r a s ou r designatio n o f

Lea d Counse l fo r

th eStat eo f Texas , Appellee , i n th eabov edescribe d case . Lea d Counse l fo r thi s cas eis : Gar y W . Bunyar d Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y P.O . Bo x

72 5 Llano , T X7864 3 (325) 247-575 5

(voice ) (325) 247-527 4

(fax ) g.bunyard@co . llano.tx.u s Ggiyw ^^Btmyar d Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y cc : Mr . Thoma s

M . Felp s Attorne y fo r Appellan t vi a eServ ean d emai l



# 81 1 Ben y Stree t • P.O . Bo x 72 5 • Uano » Texa s 7884 3 • 325-247-575 5 * Fa x 325-247-527 4 ACCEPTED 03-15-00127-CR 4381100 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/5/2015 10:48:14 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00046-CR

BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DAWSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15349

REINSTATEMENT ORDER

This appeal was abated so that the trial court could make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law as requested by appellant. The findings and conclusions have been 

made and filed with this Court.

Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated. The briefing schedule is reset. Appellant’s 

amended or supplemental brief, if any, is due 30 days from the date of this Order. The 

State’s brief is due 30 days after appellant’s amended or supplemental brief is filed. If 

appellant decides no amended or supplemental brief will be filed, appellant must notify 
Dawson v. State Page 2

the Court within 14 days from the date of this Order. The State’s brief will then be due 

30 days after the date appellant notifies the Court that no amended or supplemental brief 

will be filed. If no amended or supplemental brief is timely filed and appellant does not 

notify the Court that no amended or supplemental brief will be filed, the State’s brief is 

due 60 days from the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated

Order issued and filed August 29, 2018
October 11, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Teleconference with American Electric Power (AEP)

Attendees :

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Kevin Culligan, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Robert J. Wayland, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Bill Maxwell, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Nick Hutson, EPA/ OAR/OAQPS/SPPD John McManus, AEP John Hendricks, AEP Scott Weaver, AEP Janet Henry, AEP Paul Jackson, AEP Frank Blake, AEP Bruce Brain, AEP

Discussion :

A general discussion was held of the comment s submitted by AEP on the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).