alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 28.2
                                  [CHASE LOGO]

The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
Wilmington, DE

March 15, 2000

Management Report on Internal Control over
Servicing of Securitized Credit Card Receivables


Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. is responsible for establishing
and maintaining an effective system of internal control over servicing of
securitized credit card receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the proper servicing of securitized credit card receivables.
The system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to correct
deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of internal
control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or
overriding of controls. Accordingly, even an effective internal control system
can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to servicing of securitized
credit card receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions, the
effectiveness of an internal control system may vary over time.

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. assessed its system of internal
control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables as of December 31,
1999 in relation to criteria for effective internal control described in
"Internal Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that, as of December 31, 1999, The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
maintained an effective system of internal control over servicing of securitized
credit card receivables.


/s/ Michael Barrett
----------------------------------
Michael Barrett
President
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.

/s/ Keith Schuck
----------------------------------
Keith Schuck
Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73424-73425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20372]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special

[[Page 73425]]

Emphasis Panel; Development of Automated Cell Culture Flask Cleaning 
Instrument.
    Date: October 22, 2024.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, 
MD 20892 (Virtual).
    Contact Person: Rahat (Rani) Khan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Suite 1E504, 
Rockville, MD 20892, (301) 594-7319, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#056e6d646b7737456676772b6b6c6d2b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="046f6c656a7636446777762a6a6d6c2a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 4, 2024.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst,Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-20372 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### THOMASON et al. v. HASKELL NAT. BANK.

No. 3934.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Dec. 14, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1933.

Walter Fly, of Dallas, for appellants.

Ratliff & Ratliff and Tom Davis, all of Haskell, for appellee.

HARD, C. J.

The bank sued G. W. .Thomason and Mrs. G. W. Thomason to recover the amount of a note in the usual form, which was made payable to the appellee at its office in Haskell, Tex.

The- appellants filed separate pleas of privilege to be sued in Dallas county, which they alleged was the county in which they resided. The bank filed separate controverting affidavits, alleging the execution of the note by the appellants, that according to its terms it .was payable at the office of appellee in Haskell county, Tex., and did, therefore, under subdivision 5 of article 1995, R. S., confer jurisdiction .upon the district court of Haskell county. The appellants answered the controverting affidavits by general demurrer, special exceptions, general denial, plea of payment in the sum of $751.11, lack of jurisdiction of the district court, that Mrs. Thoma-son was a married woman at the time she signed the note, for which reason it was .void, that she was the real obligor, that G. W. Thomason signed it as an accommodation maker or surety and because the note was void there was no liability as to him because he received no consideration therefor, and further alleged that he was released because the time of payment had been extended without his knowledge or consent.

The principal contention of appellants is that Mrs. Thomason being a married woman at the time of the execution of the note, and there being no allegation • or evidence to the effect that the $1,000 for which the note was *243executed was for necessaries or for the benefit of her separate property, and because Thomason alleged that he was an accommodation indorser and received no part of the consideration and the note had been extended without his knowledge, there was no liability on the part of either party, and because for said reasons the contract was void, it did not come within the terms of article 1995, subdivision 5.

A married woman’s note, given for purposes not specifically authorized by statute, is not void, but voidable. She may de-' feat a recovery against her personally by pleading her coverture or at her option she may waive this defense. Taylor v. Leonard (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 134; Cruger v. McCracken, 87 Tex. 584, 30 S. W. 537.

The matters set up in the answer to the controverting affidavits with reference to the coverture of Mrs. Thomason, the want of consideration and release from liability of Thomason, are all matters which affect the validity of the contract sued on and cannot enter into the trial of the issues presented by the plea of privilege.

As said in Bradley v. Trinity State Bank, 118 Tex. 274, 14 S.W.(2d) 810, 811: “The ownership of the note, and the validity of the obligation evidenced thereby, are matters which go only to the merits of the action. An inquiry into those matters has no proper place in determining the question of venue.”.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION:

I, Lota S. Zoth, certify that:

|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) for the year
          ended December 31, 2003 of MedImmune, Inc. (the Registrant); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
          material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
          made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
          misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 21, 2004

| |  | /s/ Lota S. Zoth
Lota S. ZothSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GffiSON RIVERA & TOMS LLP ROBERT L. TOMS, 

### JR., Bar No. 118371 527 South Lake Avenue, Suite 105 Pasadena, California 91101 

# RECEJ\/ED SEP 1

# 72012 HEARING DOCKET Tel: (626) 405-1122 Fax: (626) 405-8966 e-mail: rtoms@grtlaw.net Attorney for Aviation Repair Solutions, Inc.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF AVIATION REP AIR SOLUTIONS, 

### INC. FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0474 FAA CASE NO. 2011WP910331

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING Respondent Aviation Repair Solutions, Inc., a California corporation has reached a settlement with the Federal Aviation Administration and on that basis hereby requests withdrawal of Aviation Repair's Request for Hearing in this matter.
Dated: September

# /C, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

527 South Lake Avenue, Suite 105 Pasadena, California 91101 Tel: (626) 405-1122 Fax: (626) 405-8966 E-mail: rtoms@grtlaw.net

1

### FDSM No. FAA-2012-0474 (Civil PenaltyAction) I am employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State ofCalifornia. I am over the age ofeighteen (18) 

### and not 

### a party to the within action; Mybusiness address is: 

### 527 SouthLake Avenue, Suite 

### 105, Pasadena, California 91101. On September 10, 2012, I served the foregoing document in this action described as: 

### NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Executed on Ssmtember 10. 2012 at Pasadena, California. (XX) (Federal) I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofUnited States ofAmerica that the above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the office ofa member ofthe Bar ofthis Court at whose direction the service was made.



### 1

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY 

### Michael .F. Mckinley, Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: (202) 267-7100 FAX: (202) 267-5106 E-MAIL: michael.f.mckinley@faa.gov The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: (202)366-2139 Attorney-Advisor (202) 366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: (202) 366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orbyexpedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC430 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

t1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147715

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147715

COA: 310243

Genesee CC: 10

- 027998

- FC

WALTER EDWARD STEPHENS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                         763,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 25,123,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,124,971
<PP&E>                                      13,463,453
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,577,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,263,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,868,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,144
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,755,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,263,689
<SALES>                                     86,527,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,527,566
<CGS>                                       55,483,180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               86,061,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                351,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                   143,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            207,423
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   207,423
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2








                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
National Quality Care, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(Nos.
333-03622, 333-06175, 333-14839, 333-21911, 333-25955, 333-32287,333-34703,
333-45145, 333-46967, 333-49059, and 333-73413), on Form S-8 of National Quality
Care, Inc. of our report dated March 18, 2003, relating to the consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 2002, which report is included in the December 31, 2002 and 2003
annual report on Form 10-KSB of National Quality Care, Inc.



/s/ Moss Adams LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 6, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE," BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE AND
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
PRESENTED BELOW IN PLACE OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE AND FULLY DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,597
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (97)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,484
<PP&E>                                       2,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                 814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,654
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        11
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,740
<SALES>                                      7,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,792
<CGS>                                        3,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (44)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,443)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,443)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,443)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.25)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
               REPORT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Genelabs Technologies, Inc.

     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Genelabs
Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999. 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 audits.

     We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States. 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 audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

     In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Genelabs
Technologies,  Inc. at December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the consolidated results
of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1999,  in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
February 10, 2000
Frontdoorphotos

4717 West Terry Circle Holland, Michigan 49424 Taylor Bloom Owner 616 - 283 - 9294 Taylor@frontdoorphotos.net 

### Content View document: Front Door Photos Petition for Exemption / Rulemaking Attached Files: 1) Front D oor P hoto's Petition for E xcemption / Rulemaking . 2) Consent Form. 3) DJI Phantom 2 and DJI Inspire 1 Preflight Checklist . 4) DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Phantom 2 Vision Manuals . 5) Map of Category A and Category B No fly Zones in Michigan that Front D oor P hotos will be using.
* Appellants propose the All Writs Act as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. Appellants never raised this issue at trial and are foreclosed from raising it now. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119-121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 3 F.3d 391, 395 (11th Cir.1993). United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-2138. In re INFANT FORMULA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL 878; Fleming Companies, Inc.; State of Louisiana, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellee. Dec. 20, 1995. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. No. 91-MDL-878), Maurice Mitchell Paul, Chief Judge. Before EDMONDSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by class plaintiffs ("Appellants") of an order denying their motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against Locator of Missing Heirs, Inc. ("Appellee"), a non-party to the pending Antitrust action brought by Appellants against several manufacturers of infant formula. The district court denied Appellants' motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. Appellants say the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter involving a non-party under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. *The district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter is a question of law reviewed de novo. Sea Vessel,Inc. v. Reyes, 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir.1994). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). Rule 23(d) is only a procedural law; it is not a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
AFFIRMED.