alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 34.2**

**Exhibit 34.2**

[Ernst & Young LLP Letterhead] 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Board of Directors 

The Bank of New York 

 

We have examined management’s assertions, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that The Bank of New York (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company served as trustee that are backed by the same asset type backing the asset-backed securities transactions completed by the BA Credit Card Trust(including the asset-backed securities transactions completed by the BA Credit Card Trust) that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 by issuers with a fiscal year end of June 30, 2006, and that were registered with the SEC pursuantto the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”) except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(iii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included selection of a sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination period, and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed thoseactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing of selected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures did not include determining whether errors may have occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions orany other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of June 30, 2006 and for the period fromJanuary 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

September 20, 2006
Order entered October 1 7 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00957
- CV KENNETH LEO BUHOLTZ, Appellant

V.
GREGG GIBBS AND CHAR LES PHILIPS, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 004
- 01275
- 2016



### O RDER The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed, as has appellant’s brief. The brief is deficient in that it does not contain the requisite citations to the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1. It appears, based on a motion filed October 15, 2018, that appellant does not have a copy of the clerk’s record. In the motion, appellant , a pro se indigent inmate, seeks a stay of the appeal so that he ca n determine if the clerk’s record is “accurate

. ” He explains he requested , prior to the clerk’s record being filed, a copy of the trial court’s “Docket” for purposes of
de signating the items to be included in the record. To date, he has not received the “Docket

. ”
We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent we DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a paper copy of the clerk’s record to appellant and ORDER appellant to file , no later thanNovember 1 9 , 2018, either a motion to supplement the clerk’s record designating any relevant

items omitted from the record or an amended brief that includes appropriate citations to the
clerk’s record and otherwise complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 38.1. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.5( c) , 38.1.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### The American Freehold, etc. Company *vs.*Candler.

November 30, 1887.

The judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions, in the form prescribed by §4252 of the code, omitted the words ‘‘ is true ” in the first line. The bill of exceptions was therefore dismissed because not properly certified.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; JOSHUA SARNER; : NO. 02-4302

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE; :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D.; JOHN MATUSAVAGE; :

JOHN DOE PROCESS SERVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND :

AS AGENT FOR SARNER 7 ASSOCIATES, P.C.; :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE; LEONARD SARNER, :

ESQUIRE; AND JODI H. BROWN, M.D. :

ORDER

Upon consideration of correspondence to the Court from Defendants’ counsel dated

December 9, 2002, a Telephone Status Conference in this matter will be held on December 18,

2002, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the production of Plaintiff’s medical records and the possible

modification of the current discovery deadlines. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate this conference call

to (215) 597-6079.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 27 Filed 12/09/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017078EN.01001001.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v NV BSH Home Appliances

(Case C-632/16)

(2017/C 078/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV

Applicants:

Defendant: NV BSH Home Appliances

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Can strict compliance with the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation (1) (without supplementing the label as defined in Annex II thereof with information about the test conditions which lead to the classification in an energy efficiency class in accordance with Annex I) be regarded as a misleading omission within the meaning of Article 7 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1)

Can strict compliance with the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation (1) (without supplementing the label as defined in Annex II thereof with information about the test conditions which lead to the classification in an energy efficiency class in accordance with Annex I) be regarded as a misleading omission within the meaning of Article 7 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive? (2)

1

2

| 2) | Does the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation preclude supplementing the label with other symbols which communicate the same information? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Does the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation preclude supplementing the label with other symbols which communicate the same information?

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

1

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

2

---
Agency -PLSA  

The Officer of the agency identified below designates the following to serve as Primary Local Security Administrator (PLSA) and the following to serve as the Local Security Administrator (LSA) for the Over the Counter Channel (OTCnet) Application.  Each PLSA may designate other individuals as Users or Local Security Administrators (LSAs).  It is required that you have 1 PLSA and at least 1 LSA at the Agency/highest level of your hierarchy.
# C_2018161EN.01004701.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T-242/16) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Applicant’s name maintained on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Objection of illegality - Proportionality - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 161/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: E. Paasivirta and S. Bartelt, and subsequently by: E. Paasivirta and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Edward Stavytskyi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Edward Stavytskyi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

1

---
IPAC Operational Metrics for December 2023
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc.
Exhibit 11--Earnings per Share

                                                   Three months ended Sept. 30,       Nine months ended Sept. 30,
                                                    2003               2002             2003             2002
                                               ----------------   ---------------   --------------   --------------
<S>                                       <C>                    <C>              <C>             <C>
Numerator:
     Net income                                       $ 57,067          $171,957        $ 286,645         $406,540


Denominator:
     Denominator for basic earnings per
         share--weighted-average shares                388,052           388,052          388,052          388,052

     Effect of dilutive securities:
         Nonqualified stock options                      9,291             6,662            9,291            7,231

                                               ----------------   ---------------   --------------   --------------
     Denominator for diluted earnings
         per share                                     397,343           394,714          397,343          395,283
                                               ================   ===============   ==============   ==============


Basic earnings per share                                $ 0.15            $ 0.44           $ 0.74           $ 1.05
                                               ================   ===============   ==============   ==============

Diluted earnings per share                              $ 0.14            $ 0.44           $ 0.72           $ 1.03
                                               ================   ===============   ==============   ==============
</TABLE>
O pinion filed May 25 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ ______



### No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 083

- C R

_____ __ ____



### EX PARTE DECAMREN DESHON SIMS

On Appeal from the 385 t h District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No

. CR48745

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant , DeCamren Deshon Sims, has filed a motion to dismiss t h is appeal

.
In the motion, Appellant requests that we withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss

this appeal

. The motion is si gned by both Appellant and h is counsel in accordance

with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.2

.
The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Ma y 25 , 2017

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J

. , and Bailey, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                       264
<INVENTORY>                                      4,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,510
<PP&E>                                          14,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,056
<SALES>                                         13,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,089
<CGS>                                            6,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    39
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,076)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,061)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
No. 66239.

#### M. Shapiro & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 281048-K and 313232-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *385
      *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TenFold
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Hughes, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                        |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Robert P. Hughes                                                                    |  |  |  | 
|Robert P. Hughes                                                                        |  |  |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|August 1, 2007                                                                          |  |  |  |
Case 2:04-cv-03301-PBT Document 19-1 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-03301-PBT Document 19-1 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2
Ex-99.4

Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions to
Certificateholders

Class        Interest            Principal         Losses       Ending Balance
------    --------------      ----------------    ---------   ------------------
A1         $1,927,321.75        $2,095,542.80       $0.00      $152,195,254.20
A2         $0.00                $0.00               $0.00      $7,087,773.44
A3         $125,000.00          $0.00               $0.00      $10,000,000.00
A4         $281,250.00          $0.00               $0.00      $22,500,000.00
A5         $281,250.00          $0.00               $0.00      $22,500,000.00
P          $0.00                $113.96             $0.00      $66,062.61
X          $213,630.17          $0.00               $0.00      $223,352,177.68
R          $0.63                $100.00             $0.00      $0.00
B1         $59,140.73           $6,190.45           $0.00      $4,726,609.55
B2         $21,121.87           $2,210.90           $0.00      $1,688,089.10
B3         $12,672.12           $1,326.43           $0.00      $1,012,773.57
B4         $8,448.50            $884.33             $0.00      $675,215.67
B5         $5,633.16            $589.64             $0.00      $450,210.36
B6         $5,632.90            $589.61             $0.00      $450,189.19
RC INVASION INT’L INC.

DJI PHANTOM 3 PROFESSIONAL PRE-FLIGHT CHECK LIST.

1. Ground check prior to flight, includes checking battery level both 

on Drone and Radio check levels show as charged.

2. Check communication between Radio and Drone.

3. Once connected Calibrate GPS prior to any flight this will assure 

a safe return of the Drone during a low battery level or loss of 

signal.

4. Check GPS signals and only fly with a minimum of 12 satellites.

5. Check signal and any message reading restricted zone on flight 

screen. Refrain from flight if you get restricted zone. “You are in 

a restricted zone or within an airport proximity of 5 miles” DO 

NOT FLY!

6. Drone is not to be flown above 200 feet in altitude at any time.

7. VFR visual flight Rules pertain to every flight.

8. If its foggy, raining or high winds DRONE is not to be flown and 

put at risk the safety of people and or properties.

9. Only fly in clear un-obstructed areas.91.13
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of Anmore Inc.
for the Year Ended December 31, 2002, I, Jeffrey Glick, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Genesis Realty Group, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for
          the year ended December 31, 2002, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Genesis Realty Group, Inc.

Dated:  January 10, 2005

GENESIS REALTY GROUP, INC.


By: /s/ Jeffrey Glick
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Duska
Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Amir Pelleg, Ph.D., President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ AMIR PELLEG, PH. D
|Amir Pelleg, Ph. D    
|President             
|                      
|March 30, 2005