alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(A)

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
American Honda Finance Corporation

Members of the Board:

We have examined management's assertion about American Honda Finance
Corporation's (the Company's) compliance with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, as they relate to the servicing of
retail automobile loan contracts, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2002
included in the accompanying management's assertion. The minimum servicing
standards not considered by the Company to be applicable to the servicing of
retail automobile loans include procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section I - Custodial
Bank Accounts, procedures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of section III - Disbursements and
procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section V - Mortgage Loan Accounting. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, including
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. 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 minimum servicing
standards.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with insurance
requirements applicable to the Company as of and for the year ended March 31,
2002. The Company was not in compliance with minimum servicing standards for
maintaining an errors and omissions policy effective during the year ended March
31, 2002.

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third
paragraph, American Honda Finance Corporation has complied, in all material
respects, with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended March 31, 2002.


/s/ KPMG LLP

September 23, 2003
720 S. Colorado Blvd

Penthouse North

Denver, CO 80246

Tel: +1 (334) 578 2900

Fax: + 1 (334) 460 8111

www.unmannedexperts.com

E

- Mail: operations@unmannedexperts.com

September 24 , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590



## Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No. 12075

Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1370

Petitioner:

Unmanned Experts, Inc.

Drew A. Jurkofsky, CKO

720 S. Colorado Blvd , PH North

Denver, CO 80246

Cell: 970

- 237

- 1902

Email: drew.j@unmannedexperts.com

Website: www.unmannedexperts.com

Dear Sir or Madam

,

By letter f rom the FAA dated July 17 , 2015 , an exemption was granted to Unmanned Experts for relief under

Section 333. That letter was marke d Section 333 Exemption No. 12075 Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1370

.

This application is substantially based on the FAA ’ s findings in Exemption No. 11194 (FAA

- 2014

- 0910),

Exemption No. 11287 (FAA

- 2014

- 0950), Exemption No. 11306 A (FAA

- 2014

- 1023) , Exemption No. 12284 (FAA

2015

- 2127) and Exem ption No. 12407 (FAA

- 2015

- 0994), and in reliance on the analysis provided therein.

Unmanned Experts hereby requests that the exemption so granted, be now amended to include :

1. ING Responder

2. ING Serenity

3. Mikado Logo 800

4. MULTIROTOR G4 Blackbird

5. MULTIROTOR G4 Eagle

6. MULTIROTOR G4 Recon One

7. MULTIROTOR G4 SkycraneExemptions / Rule Making

Unmanned Experts PROPRIETARY Page 2 of 2 8. MULTIROTOR G4 Surveying

- Robot

9. senseFly eBee

10. senseFly eXom

11. Yuneec Typhoon Q500+

Attach ed are the Aircraft Flight Manuals and specifications for the se aircraft . They contain the following:

• General Information

• Operating Limitations

• Normal Procedures

• Emergency Procedures

• Aircraft and Systems Description

• Handling, Service and Maintenance Procedures

The findings, rationale, conclusions and conditions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 1 2075 apply to this

application to include the ING Responder, ING Serenity , Mikado Logo 800, MULTIROTOR G4 Blackbird

, MULTIROTOR G4 Eagle, MULTIROTOR G4 Recon One, MULTIROTOR G4 Skycrane, MULTIROTOR G4 Surveying

Robot, senseFly eBee, senseFly eXom and Yuneec Typhoon Q500+ in Exemption No. 12075

.

Thank you for your conside ration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional information

that is required.

Very Respectfully,

Drew A. Jurkofsky

Chief Knowledge Officer

Unmanned Experts, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

:

V. :

:

TRUSTMARK INSURANCE CO. : NO. 04-2322

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2006, inasmuch as Plaintiff’s counsel has

failed to comply with the Court’s June 1, 2006 Order requesting a status report (Doc. No. 13), IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel shall show cause, on or before July 10, 2006,

why this matter should not be removed from Civil Suspense and Dismissed for Lack of

Prosecution.

BY THE COURT:

s/John R. Padova

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 14 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 1 of 1

PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 14

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 10.25

FUNCTIONAL MANAGEMENT TEAM
                                        EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

---

THIS AGREEMENT  is made between  EXTENDED SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (ESI)  and  Scott
Ritchie (EMPLOYEE)  for the employment of  EMPLOYEE  by  ESI.

1. EMPLOYMENT: ESI hereby hires EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYEE accepts employment with ESI
as VP of Operations.
2. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT: This Agreement shall commence the 16th day of October , 2000 and shall continue until
terminated by either party pursuant to paragraph five.
3. COMPENSATION: The EMPLOYEE shall receive as compensation for his/her services the amount of $13,440 per month plus
all employee benefits as set forth in the current issue of the Extended Systems Employee Handbook.
4. DUTIES OF EMPLOYEE: EMPLOYEE shall have the duties and authority as set forth in the job description.
5. ROLLING SIX (6) MONTH CONTRACT: This contract is a continuous, rolling
six (6) month agreement entitling employee to six (6) months termination pay, at
employees current salary, if terminated without cause or without six (6) months
written notice. In the event EMPLOYEE is removed from the Functional Management
Team (FMT) into another position within ESI, the six month notice period to
terminate this contract will automatically begin on the date EMPLOYEE ceases to
be a member of the Functional Management Team.
6. VACATION: EMPLOYEE shall accumulate paid vacation as set forth in Extended Systems Time-Off Policy.
7. TRAVEL EXPENSES: EMPLOYEE shall be reimbursed for all authorized travel and lodging expenses.
8. FRINGE BENEFITS: Fringe benefits shall be provided by ESI as set forth in the Extended Systems Employee Handbook, which is
located on the HR Intranet. I understand that I am responsible for familiarizing myself with the contents of the handbook. I
understand that the contents in the Employee Handbook are subject to change at Extended Systems' discretion and do not create any
contractual commitments by the Company.. SR (Employee Initials)
9. DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY: EMPLOYEE agrees to abide by the terms of the Extended Systems Drug and Alcohol Policy. Receipt of
Drug and Alcohol Policy is hereby acknowledged. SR (Employee Initials).
10. NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT: EMPLOYEE agrees to abide by the terms of the Extended Systems Non-Disclosure Agreement.

DATED this 16th day of October, 2000.

/s/ Scott Ritchie
_________________________________Functional Management Team Employee

/s/ Debbie Kaylor
_________________________________Extended Systems
# C_2016145EN.01002002.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/20

---

Action brought on 3 February 2016 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-62/16)

(2016/C 145/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, M. Heller and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Romania

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Directive 2012/33/EU (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Directive 2012/33/EU (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

1

| — | order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 38 042,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2012/33/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 38 042,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2012/33/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order Romania to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 18 June 2014.

---

(1)  Directive 2012/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (OJ 2012 L 327, p. 1).

1

---
Opinion issued January 9 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 23

- 0 0821

- CV

——————————— IN RE ADRI AN SIBLEY , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Adrian Sibley
, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
, challenging (1) the trial court’s denial of her “ pauper ’ s affidavit” and (2) the trial

court’s subject

- matter jurisdiction. 1 Relator request s that the Court “grant [her]
petition for [m]andamus [relief] and order the trial cour t to approve [ her ] pauper ’ s

1 The underlying case is Walter William Haufler, Ladonna Florin Haufler, and Haifler Family Living Trust v. Adrian Sibley , Cause No. 1214095, in the County Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Audrie Lawton

- Evans presiding.2

affidavit

. . . or in the alternative, order

. . . the trial court

. . . [to ] set no bond or in
the alternative, [hold]

. . . the trial court has no s ubject

- matter jurisdiction of [her]

pauper ’ s affidavit and the judgment.”
We deny the petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 2.8(a). All pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss , and Farris

.
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Alto Palermo Sociedad Anónima (the company) for the year ended June 30, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Gabriel Blasi, as Chief Financial Officer of the company, hereby certifies, 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 and 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/ Gabriel Blasi      
|By: |  | Gabriel Blasi          
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    | 
|    |  | December 27, 2007      

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,757
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              82
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,695
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 7,999
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    365,416
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         391,770
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           392,506
<LOANS>                                        511,226
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (6,353)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 957,133
<DEPOSITS>                                     803,540
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,800
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,811
<LONG-TERM>                                     57,225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 957,133
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,635
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,869
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   167
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,628
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,043
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      387
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 290
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,673
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,331
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,331
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .022
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .022
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.71
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,271
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,115
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      246
<RECOVERIES>                                        69
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,353
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,353
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016371EN.01003101.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/31

---

Action brought on 18 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-43/16)

(2016/C 371/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Cornacchia, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision excluding the applicant from the competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 because he failed to inform EPSO of his family connection to a member of the selection board of that competition.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 19 May 2016, taken in response to the request for re-examination made by the applicant on 5 November 2015, by which the president of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 confirmed the decision to exclude him from that competition and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the appeal and the initial decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 19 May 2016, taken in response to the request for re-examination made by the applicant on 5 November 2015, by which the president of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 confirmed the decision to exclude him from that competition and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the appeal and the initial decision;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2017424EN.01000301.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-65/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey - Article 9 - Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council - Articles 4, 5 and 7 - Customs Union - Road transport - Motor vehicle tax - Taxation of heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey crossing Hungary in transit))

(2017/C 424/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istanbul Lojistik Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union must be interpreted as meaning that a tax on motor vehicles such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which must be paid by persons operating heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey and in transit through Hungarian territory, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
# C_2016364EN.01000902.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-404/16)

(2016/C 364/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of refusal in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) to be interpreted as including a situation in which, under a closed-end financial leasing agreement, the lessor under the lease (‘the lessor’) may no longer claim payment of the leasing instalment from the lessee under the lease (‘the lessee’) because the lessor has terminated the agreement owing to breach of contract by the lessee? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of refusal in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) to be interpreted as including a situation in which, under a closed-end financial leasing agreement, the lessor under the lease (‘the lessor’) may no longer claim payment of the leasing instalment from the lessee under the lease (‘the lessee’) because the lessor has terminated the agreement owing to breach of contract by the lessee?

| 2. | If the answer is in the affirmative, may the lessor, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, reduce the taxable amount, even if the national legislature, availing itself of the option provided in Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive, has not allowed reduction of the taxable amount in the event of total or partial non-payment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the affirmative, may the lessor, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, reduce the taxable amount, even if the national legislature, availing itself of the option provided in Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive, has not allowed reduction of the taxable amount in the event of total or partial non-payment?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
# C_2017402EN.01002802.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)

(Case T-382/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ASNA WINGS - Earlier Benelux word mark WINGS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court))

(2017/C 402/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asna, Inc. (San Antonio, Texas, United States) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wings Software BVBA (Heist-Op-den-Berg, Belgium) (represented by: C. Dekoninck and J. Bussé, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2016 (Case R 436/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wings Software and Asna.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Asna, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Asna, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

1

---