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





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Shareholders and Board of Directors
Blue River Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Shelbyville, Indiana

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Blue River
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2003, and
the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to
have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over
financial reporting. 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, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of Blue River Bancshares, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003, and the results of their operations and
their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

March 29, 2004
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 The McClatchy Company
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary B. Pruitt, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ GARY B. PRUITT                    
|                         |  |  |  | Gary B. Pruitt Chief Executive Officer
**
Certification of the Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  
I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that to the best ofmy knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2003 of the Company (the "Report"):(1)  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Glenn F. Tilton
Glenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerMay 2, 2003

**
H. Con. Res. 269 Agreed to December 14, 2007 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585, the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections: 

(1) In the table in section 2201(a)— 

(A) strike ‘‘Alaska’’ in the State column and insert 

‘‘Alabama’’; and 

(B) in the item relating to Naval Station, Bremerton, Washington, strike ‘‘$119,760,000’’ in the amount column 

and insert ‘‘$190,960,000’’. 

(2) In section 2204(b)— 

(A) in paragraph (2), strike ‘‘Hawaii’’ and insert 

‘‘Hawaii)’’; 

(B) in paragraph (3), strike ‘‘Guam’’ and insert 

‘‘Guam)’’; and 

(C) add at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(4) $71,200,000 (the balance of the amount authorized 

under section 2201(a) for a nuclear aircraft carrier maintenance 

pier at Naval Station Bremerton, Washington).’’. 

(3) In section 2703— 

(A) insert ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

’’ before ‘‘Funds’’; 

(B) in paragraph (4), strike ‘‘$2,107,148,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$2,241,062,000’’; and 

(C) add at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(b) GENERAL REDUCTION.—The amount otherwise authorized 

to be appropriated by subsection (a) is reduced by $133,914,000.’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6216

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-6673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ, a/k/a Jerome Smith,

a/k/a Michael Smith, a/k/a Bobby Seals, a/k/a

Bobby Seal, a/k/a Cedric Ellison, a/k/a

Fretral McRae, a/k/a Chreshan Allen,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:00-CR-75-F; 7:03-CV-17-F)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006
- 2 -

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy,

Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

2

See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion, and his motions for application of Booker1 and

Teague,2 to correct judgment, for reconsideration, and to recall

the mandate (Appeal No. 06-6216), as well as his “place holder”

motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for

reconsideration of the denial of his “place holder motion.”

(Appeal No. 06-6673). The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
3To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first

time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v.

United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

- 4 -

appeal.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1629 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1629

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating 
 to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the 
              Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2011

 Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating 
 to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the 
              Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Agent Orange Equity Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS OF EXPOSURE FOR VETERANS WHO 
              SERVED IN VICINITY OF REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM.

    (a) Compensation.--Subsections (a)(1) and (f) of section 1116 of 
title 38, United States Code, are amended by inserting ``(including the 
territorial seas of such Republic)'' after ``served in the Republic of 
Vietnam'' each place it appears.
    (b) Health Care.--Section 1710(e)(4) of such title is amended by 
inserting ``(including the territorial seas of such Republic)'' after 
``served on active duty in the Republic of Vietnam''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect as of September 25, 1985.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 122

    To provide for congressional approval of national monuments and 
             restrictions on the use of national monuments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for congressional approval of national monuments and 
             restrictions on the use of national monuments.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Monuments Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    The Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), is amended--
            (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 431), by striking ``sec. 2. 
        That the'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    ``After obtaining congressional approval of the proposed national 
monument and certifying compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to the 
proposed national monument, the''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC USE.

    ``The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement any 
restrictions on the public use of a national monument until the 
expiration of an appropriate review period (as determined by the 
Secretary of the Interior) providing for public input and congressional 
approval.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 47025.

#### Protest 782290-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is composed in part of bamboo and is similar in all’ material respects to that the subject of Abstract 40493, the claim at 45 percent-under paragraph 409 was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 307 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 307

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas Members' Congressional papers (including papers of Delegates and 
        Resident Commissioners to the Congress) serve as indispensable sources 
        for the study of American representative democracy;
Whereas these papers document vital national, regional, and local public policy 
        issues;
Whereas these papers are crucial to the public's understanding of the role of 
        Congress in making the Nation's laws and responding to the needs of its 
        citizens;
Whereas because these papers serve as essential primary sources for the history 
        of Congress, the study of these papers will illuminate the careers of 
        individual Members;
Whereas by custom, these papers are considered the personal property of the 
        Member who receives and creates them, and it is therefore the Member who 
        is responsible to decide on their ultimate disposition; and
Whereas resources are available through the Office of the Clerk of the House of 
        Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate to assist Members with 
        the professional and cost-effective management and preservation of these 
        papers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) Members' Congressional papers (including papers of 
        Delegates and Resident Commissioners to the Congress) should be 
        properly maintained;
            (2) each Member of Congress should take all necessary 
        measures to manage and preserve the Member's own Congressional 
        papers; and
            (3) each Member of Congress should be encouraged to arrange 
        for the deposit or donation of the Member's own noncurrent 
        Congressional papers with a research institution that is 
        properly equipped to care for them, and to make these papers 
        available for educational purposes at a time the Member 
        considers appropriate.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 307

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Expressing the sense of Congress that Members' Congressional papers 
   should be properly maintained and encouraging Members to take all 
        necessary measures to manage and preserve these papers.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1343

JONATHAN COBB; DARRYL COBB; ANNETTE COBB,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; BOARD OF VISITORS;

HOVEY S. DABNEY; CHARLES CARAVATI; JOHN

ACKERLY, III; CHAMP CLARK; FRANKLIN BIRCKHEAD;

WILLIAM CRUTCHFIELD; WILLIAM GOODWIN; T.

KEISTER GREER; ELSIE GOODWYN HOLLAND; C.

WILSON MCNEELY, III; TERENCE ROSS; ALBERT

SMALL; ELIZABETH TWOHY; HENRY VALENTINE, III;

WALTER WALKER; JAMES WHEAT, III; KRISTINE

LALONDE; ALEXANDER GILLIAM, JR.; WILLIAM HARMON; HONOR COMMITTEE; NICOLE ERAMO; JENNIFER

ERICKSON; APRIL FEARNLEY; D. CABELL VEST;

CLAIR PARRISH; ERIKA WERNER; UNKNOWN MEMBERS

OF INVESTIGATION PANEL I; JENNIFER JONES;

JUSTIN KNEBEL; SCOTT WALKER; KELLY MANN;

ELIZABETH BIBB; DEBEER, First Name Unknown;

UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF INVESTIGATION PANEL II;

UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF REVIEW PANEL; EDMOND COX;

JEFFREY LUDDEN; TIFFANY PANKOW; STEWART

MCCUTCHEN; AARON BOOTH; SCOTT WALKER; UNKNOWN

MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE BOARD; TIMOTHY ROBERTSON;

BENJAMIN WARTHEN; STEWART MCCUTCHEN; AARON

BOOTH; SCOTT WALKER; UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF

EXECUTIVE BOARD; TIMOTHY ROBERTSON; BENJAMIN

WARTHEN; JOSEPH WOLFE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (CA-99-7-3)
2

Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 28, 2000

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Cobb, Darryl Cobb, Annette Cobb, Appellants Pro Se. Mark

L. Earley, Attorney General, Ronald Curtis Forehand, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ashley Lionel Taylor, Jr., Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Patrick B. Kelly, UNIVERSITY

OF VIRGINIA, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Jonathan Cobb, Darryl Cobb, and Annette Cobb appeal

the district court’s order dismissing Darryl and Annette as

plaintiffs for lack of standing, and Jonathan Cobb appeals the

district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the

Appellees on his civil action alleging violation of his constitutional and state law rights. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cobb

v. University of Va., No. CA-99-7-3 (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-26-1998
<CASH>                                          25,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,158,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,174,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,278,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            92,776,848
<PP&E>                                     180,663,473
<DEPRECIATION>                              66,149,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             270,201,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       39,081,214
<BONDS>                                    102,129,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,593
<OTHER-SE>                                 112,990,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               270,201,508
<SALES>                                     38,161,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           211,592,073
<CGS>                                       32,859,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              184,763,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,877,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,857,216
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,645,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,212,216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,212,216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit** **21**

**List of Subsidiaries**

 

The Company has twenty wholly-owned subsidiaries located throughout the world, as follows:

 

|   | 1. | Mannatech Australia Pty Limited |
|--------|----|---------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Mannatech Japan, K.K. |
|--------|----|-----------------------|

|   | 3. | Mannatech Korea, Ltd. |
|--------|----|-----------------------|

|   | 4. | Mannatech Limited (a New Zealand Company) |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | Mannatech Limited (a UK Company) |
|--------|----|----------------------------------|

|   | 6. | Mannatech Taiwan Corporation |
|--------|----|------------------------------|

|   | 7. | Mannatech Payment Services Incorporated |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|   | 8. | Mannatech Products Company Inc. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------|

|   | 9. | Internet Health Group, Inc. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------|

|   | 10. | Mannatech (International) Limited |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------|

|   | 11. | Mannatech, Incorporated Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------|

|   | 12. | Mannatech Singapore Pte. Ltd. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------|

|   | 13. | Mannatech Canada Corporation |
|--------|-----|------------------------------|

|   | 14. | Mannatech South Africa (Pty) Ltd |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------|

|   | 15. | Mannatech Bermuda Holdings Limited |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------|

|   | 16. | Mannatech Denmark ApS |
|--------|-----|-----------------------|

|   | 17. | Mannatech (Gibraltar) Holdings Limited |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------|

|   | 18. | Mannatech Swiss Holdings GmbH |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------|

|   | 19. | Mannatech Swiss International GmbH |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------|

|   | 20. | Mannatech Malaysia Trading Co. Sdn. Bhd. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1  WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  b. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada.  Date: July 31, 2009/s/ Donald R. Mayer
Donald R. Mayer
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer