alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                        REPORT OF PREDECESSOR ACCOUNTANT
                             ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


Board of Directors
First Federal of Northern Michigan
Alpena, Michigan


We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial condition
of FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION and subsidiary as of December 31,
1999, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1999.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Association's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of FIRST FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION and subsidiary at December 31, 1999, and the
results of their operations and cash flows for each of the two years in the
period ended December 31, 1999, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.


/s/ Straley, Ilsley & Lamp P.C.
February 14, 2000
Alpena, Michigan
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BOBBY PAYNE : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SUPERINTENDENT WYNDER, et al. : NO. 04-4141

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of August , 2005, upon careful and

independent consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United states Magistrate Judge

Peter B. Scuderi, and any objections thereto, IT IS ORDERED that:

 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

 2. The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254,

 is DENIED; and

 3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

 BY THE COURT:

 /s/ 

 LEGROME D. DAVIS, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04141-LDD Document 15 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 1
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CENTRIX HR, LLC : CIVIL ACTION 

v. :

ON-SITE STAFF MANAGEMENT, INC. : NO. 04-5660

d/b/a/ CENTRIX STAFFING, et al.

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2010, it is hereby

ORDERED

that plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Expert Report, Expert Testimony, and Evidence of

Damages Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703 (Doc. No. 92) is DENIED for the reasons set

forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Decision.

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Thomas J. Rueter 

THOMAS J. RUETER 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge
# C_2019328EN.01003801.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission

(Case T-8/16) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events organised by two computer manufacturers - Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of the defence - Jurisdiction of the Commission - Geographic scope of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Principle of good administration - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2019/C 328/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (Suwon-si, South Korea) (represented initially by M. Bay, J. Ruiz Calzado, A. Aresu and A. Scordamaglia-Tousis, and subsequently by M. Bay, J. Ruiz Calzado and A. Aresu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, A. Biolan and M. Farley, and subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Farley and A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, Agents,)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

---
# C_2016145EN.01003801.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/38

---

Action brought on 29 January 2016 — ZZ and Others v EEAS

(Case F-6/16)

(2016/C 145/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European External Action Service

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the applicants’ salary slips in respect of March 2015 and those drawn up afterwards in so far as they apply the EEAS’ decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions from 15 % to 10 %.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare the decision of the EEAS Chief Operating Officer dated 23 February 2015 inapplicable to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the decision of the EEAS Chief Operating Officer dated 23 February 2015 inapplicable to the applicants;

| — | as a result, annul their salary slips in respect of March 2015, and those drawn up afterwards in so far as those salary slips apply an ALC of 10 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a result, annul their salary slips in respect of March 2015, and those drawn up afterwards in so far as those salary slips apply an ALC of 10 %;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00593-CV

Alvin M. BURNS, I.M. Burns, Dimmit County, Hakim Dermish,

Robert L. Ramirez and Edward J. Dryden,

Appellants

v.

ROSETTA RESOURCES, LTD., a/k/a Rosetta Resources, Inc., Eusebio Cantu Torres,

Eusebio Torres, Jr., Gladiator Energy Services, LLC,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-07-11738-DCV

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED as to 

appellant Hakim Dermish. Costs of the appeal will be assessed upon final disposition of this 

appeal. 

SIGNED January 11, 2017.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
June 9, 2015

Mr. Carlos A. Franklin

3900 S Ware Rd. McAllen, TX 78503

Dear Mr. Franklin:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 16, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 0657), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2017202EN.01000702.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/7

---

Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission

(Case C-176/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Registration of the name ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG)’ - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings))

(2017/C 202/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and J. Guillem Carrau, Agents, and subsequently by: F. Moro, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Proforec Srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Proforec Srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

:

v. : NO. 04-758

:

JOHN SPANN :

:

O R D E R

STENGEL, J.

AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion to

Vacate and Set Aside Judgment (Document #71), Request for Discovery (Document #75), and

Petition for Bail (Document #76), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and the Request for Discovery are

DENIED;

2. The Petition for Bail is DISMISSED as moot;

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability;

4. The Clerk of court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Lawrence F. Stengel 

LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.
mnkd-ex105_263.htm



Exhibit 10.5

 

August 11, 2003

 

Dear Joe: 

I am pleased to confirm MannKind’s offer to you for full-time employment in the position of Senior Director, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, effective September 1, 2003. In this position, you will report directly to me. 

You will be paid on a bi-weekly basis, along with our regular payroll schedule, equating to an annualized amount of $175,000. You will be eligible to participate in the MannKind Stock Option Plan, under which we will recommend to the Board of Directors an award for you of 25,000 options. 

In addition, you will be eligible to earn a performance bonus of up to 20% of your base salary. Specific criteria required to earn this bonus will be based upon the successful achievement of agreed upon yearly objectives. In general, it will be based upon corporate objectives, your individual contributions and significant accomplishments focused primarily on leading and organizing MannKind’s Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Department in a manner that enables it to function at peak capacity, while meeting all critical timelines associated with the production of clinical supplies for the upcoming trials. 

As a full-time employee, you will also be eligible to participate in MannKind’s group medical, dental, life, disability insurance and 401(k) plan, and any other benefits that become generally available to full-time employees. 

As a condition of employment, you will be required to sign an Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, a Computer Use and Email Policy and any other future policies or agreements required by the company. 

Please be advised that the employment relationship between you and MannKind Corporation is at will. As such, you or the company can exercise the right to terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or prior notice. 

We hope you will accept this offer to join the MannKind team. I believe you have the ability to become a key member of the executive group and we certainly look forward to working with you. Once you have signed the acceptance below, please be sure to return one copy of this letter to me as soon as possible. 

 

Sincerely,Offer accepted:  

/s/ Dan Burns/s/ Joseph Kocinsky

August 15, 2003
# C_2017046EN.01001801.xml

| 13.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 of Pamplona lodged on 9 December 2016 — Wilber López Pastuzano v Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

(Case C-636/16)

(2017/C 046/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo of Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wilber López Pastuzano

Applicant:

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno de Navarra

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November [2003] concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that issue in the main proceedings, and the case-law interpreting it, which does not provide for the application of the requirements of protection against the expulsion of a long-term resident foreign national to all administrative expulsion decisions regardless of the legal nature or type thereof, but instead restricts the application of those requirements to a specific type of expulsion?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.

1

---
Case 2:05-cr-00043-HB Document 38 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 1
109 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Note 15. Insurance and Guarantee Program Liabilities

Insurance and Guarantee Program Liabilities as of September 30, 2017, and 2016

Restated

(In billions of dollars) 2017 2016

Insurance and Guarantee Program Liabilities:

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - Benefit Pension Plans ................... 178.6 174.7

Department of Homeland Security - National Flood Insurance Programs ..... 12.3 3.2

Department of Agriculture - Federal Crop Insurance ................................... 11.3 8.9

National Credit Union Administration - Share Insurance Fund ..................... 0.3 0.2

Total insurance and guarantee program liabilities .................................... 202.5 187.0

As of September 30, 2017, and 2016, $178.6 billion and $174.7 billion, respectively, pertain to the PBGC singleemployer and multiemployer pension plans. PBGC insures pension benefits for participants in covered defined benefit

pension plans. As of September 30, 2017, and 2016, PBGC had total liabilities of $184.4 billion and $179.0 billion, and its

total liabilities exceeded its total assets by $76.0 billion and $79.4 billion, respectively. Refer to PBGC’s financial statements

for more information. As a wholly-owned corporation of the government, PBGC’s financial activity and balances are

included in the consolidated financial statements of the government. Certain PBGC amounts have been restated. Refer to

Note 1.V—Restatements for more information.

As of September 30, 2017, and 2016, $12.3 billion and $3.2 billion, respectively, pertain to the DHS National Flood

Insurance Program. As a result of the major Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in August and September 2017, and the

related flooding, there was a significant increase in DHS’s insurance liabilities.

As of September 30, 2017, and 2016, $11.3 billion and $8.9 billion, respectively, pertain to the USDA’s Federal Crop

Insurance Program. The Federal Crop Insurance Program is administered by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, whose

mission is to provide an actuarially sound risk management program to reduce agricultural producers’ economic losses due to

natural disasters.

As of September 30, 2017, and 2016, $0.3 billion and $0.2 billion, respectively, pertain to the National Credit Union

Administration’s (NCUA) National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). The NCUSIF is administered by the

NCUA, and protects members’ accounts in insured credit unions in the event of a credit union failure.
EXHIBIT 35.1




SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


FIA Card Services, National Association


BA Credit Card Trust




The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of FIA Card Services, National Association (the “Bank”), as Servicer pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 20, 2006 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Bank and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee (the “Trustee”), as supplemented by the Third Amended and Restated Series 2001-D Supplement dated as of March 2, 2009 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Supplement”), by and between the Bank and the Trustee, and the Second Amended and Restated Indenture dated as of October 20, 2006 (the “Indenture”) by and between BA Credit Card Trust and The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee, does hereby certify that:




1.
The Bank is Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.




2.
The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Supplement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.




3.
This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Section 23 of the Supplement.




4.
During the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”) a review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Supplement and the Indenture has been made under my supervision.




5.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Supplement and the Indenture in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 27th day of September 2012.






By:    /s/ Michelle D. Dumont
 Name:  Michelle D. Dumont
 Title:    Senior Vice President
# C_2016211EN.01003102.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 29 March 2016 — M.H. v M.H.

(Case C-173/16)

(2016/C 211/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.H.

Defendant: M.H.

Question referred

Is ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings ... is lodged with the court’ in Article 16.1(a) of Regulation 2201/2003 (1) to be interpreted as meaning:-

| i) | the time at which the document instituting the proceedings is received by the court even if such receipt does not of itself immediately commence the proceedings in accordance with national law; or |
| --- | --- |

i)

the time at which the document instituting the proceedings is received by the court even if such receipt does not of itself immediately commence the proceedings in accordance with national law; or

| ii) | the time at which, following receipt of the document instituting the proceedings by the court, the proceedings are commenced in accordance with national law. |
| --- | --- |

ii)

the time at which, following receipt of the document instituting the proceedings by the court, the proceedings are commenced in accordance with national law.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 OJ L 338, p. 1

---