alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23(a)

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-4 and Prospectus of First Merchants Corporation, relating to the issuance
of securities in the proposed merger of Lafayette Bancorporation into First
Merchants Corporation, of our report, dated January 22, 2001, except for note 19
as to which the date is February 8, 2001, on the consolidated financial
statements of First Merchants Corporation as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2000. We also
consent to the reference to our firm appearing under the heading "Experts" in
the Prospectus.

BKD, LLP
December 21, 2001
Indianapolis, Indiana


                                   Ex. 23(a)-1
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1603

_____________________________
J AMES W ELCH , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ; J ULIE L. J ONES , Secretary, Department of Corrections

, Appellee s

.

__________________ ___________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon, Jr. , Judge

. February 20, 2018

B.L. T HOMAS , C.J

. Appellant challenges the trial court’s order transferring his petition for writ of habeas corpus to the sentencing cour t, because the petition challenges Appellant’s judgment and/or sentence. Because Appellant’s petition is a time

- barred collateral attack on his sentence
, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss

. In his petition for wri t of habeas corpus, all of Appellant’s claims for relief were based on violations of his constitutional due process rights, and he summarized his petition by stating he was “denied his 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights to due process2 of law and hearing b efore an impartial jury or fact finder.” Such claims must be made by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

“The remedy of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief available b y motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.” Baker v. State , 878 So. 3d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004). Dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, rather than transfer, is appropriate when the petitioner seeks “the kind of collateral postcon viction relief available through a motion filed in the sentencing court, and which (1) would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 . . . .” Zuluaga v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 32 So. 3d 674, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (quoting Baker , 878 So. 2d at 1246). Appellant’s sentence became final on December 9, 2010, and he filed his petition on March 7, 2017, long after the two

- year window under rule 3.850 had closed. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order and rem and with instructions to dismiss Appellant’s petition.

R EVERSED and R EMANDED

.
W OLF and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

__________ ___________________

James Welch, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Barbara Debelius Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee

, for Appellee s

.
Simulation results by Dr. George Fernandez

Examination of T and GLiM CIs with 8 Subjects –Using SAS GLIMMIX

Subject‐Subject Background Variation (Logit SD) = 0.3

Subject‐Subject Protection Variation (Logit SD) = 0

NrSims = 5000, Seed = 98135183

Overall

Bkg

Rate,%

True

% Prot

Mean

% Prot

T

Half Width

T CI

Coverage

T CI

Mean

% Prot

GLiM

Half Width

GLiM CI

Coverage

GLiM CI

10 70 68.3 12.3 95 69.6 14.0 99

85 84.2 8.2 95 84.7 8.7 98

95 94.8 4.3 94 94.9 4.6 99

98 97.9 4.2 93 97.9 3.3 98

Overall

Bkg

Rate,%

True

% Prot

Mean

% Prot

T

Half Width

T CI

Coverage

T CI

Mean

% Prot

GLiM

Half Width

GLiM CI

Coverage

GLiM CI

25 70 69.5 7.0 94 69.8 9.6 99

85 84.7 4.8 95 84.8 5.8 99

95 94.9 2.7 94 94.9 2.9 99

98 98.0 1.6 94 98.0 1.8 98

Overall

Bkg

Rate,%

True

% Prot

Mean

% Prot

T

Half Width

T CI

Coverage

T CI

Mean

% Prot

GLiM

Half Width

GLiM CI

Coverage

GLiM CI

50 70 69.9 4.5 95 70.0 6.3 100

85 84.9 3.2 95 84.9 3.8 99

95 95.0 1.8 95 95.0 1.9 98

98 98.0 1.2 94 98.0 1.2 98

Overall

Bkg

Rate,%

True

% Prot

Mean

% Prot

T

Half Width

T CI

Coverage

T CI

Mean

% Prot

GLiM

Half Width

GLiM CI

Coverage

GLiM CI

75 70 69.9 3.4 96 70.0 4.1 99

85 85.0 2.5 95 85.0 2.7 98

95 95.0 1.5 95 95.0 1.4 98

98 98.0 0.9 94 98.0 0.9 97
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11

- 50487

GARY WOODS, as Tax Matters Partner of Tesoro Drive Partners, a Texas General Partnership,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western Di strict of Texas USDC No. 5:05

- CV

- 216

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, WIENER, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

This court affirmed the district court ’s judgment, which held that

valuation

- misstatement penalties were inapplicable under existing C ircuit

precedent. Woods v. United States

, 471 F

. App ’ x 320 (5 th Cir. 2012). On

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 9, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 11-50487 Document: 00512495274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2014No. 11

- 50487

certiorari to resolv e a C ircuit split, t he Supreme Court reversed. Woods v.

United States

, 134 S. Ct. 557 (2013).

As the Supreme Court has now decided the issue raised on appeal and

reversed our decision, we reverse the judgment of the di strict court and remand

for proceedings consistent with the order of the Supreme Court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

2 Case: 11-50487 Document: 00512495274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule  contains summary  financial  information as of and
for the three months ended March 31, 1999, which is extracted from the Condensed
Consolidated  Balance Sheets,  Statements of Operations,  and Statements of Cash
Flows, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the financial statements
within the report of Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                           0001012704
<NAME>                  UGLY DUCKLING CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                            <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                               4,387
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      332,971
<ALLOWANCES>                        73,373
<INVENTORY>                         39,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                              44,237
<DEPRECIATION>                       9,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     406,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                19
<OTHER-SE>                         157,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       406,616
<SALES>                            106,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   130,118
<CGS>                               60,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    37,104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    28,561
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   3,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        700
<INCOME-TAX>                           280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    420
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                           420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.03
<FN>
<F1>UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET</FN>        

</TABLE>
comS^P^

13 2015

NO. PD-1068-15

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LAWRENCE

Appellant/Petitioner

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appelie/Respondent

§

§

§

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION TO SUSPEND T.R.A.P. RULE 9.3

NUMBER OF COPIES

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE[S] OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Christopher Alan Lawrence, pro se, and files this

FILED IN Motion to Suspend Rule 9.3, Number of Copies, and An, t^g&oxETpf

this Motion would show the followinq: „.^,.

i.

Appellant/Petitioner is a prisoner in Texas Department oP^nlininal

Justice, Institutional Division. This Motion and the Petition for

Discretionary Review are filed pro se, as a prisoner there is no

access to a copier. Therefore Appellant/Petitioner has no way to

create the number of copies required by Rule 9.3 and therefore

humbly requests that this Honorable Court suspend Rule 9.3, Number

of Copies and accept the Petition for Discretionary Review as one

original copy.

Respectfully Submitted on this

6th day of November, 2015

By:

%/W~M^l/ iLlf^^

IRISTOPHER ALAN LAWRENCE

TDCJ # 1923479

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TX 78102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned Appellant/Petitioner hereby certifies that a

true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Suspend T.R.A.P.

Rule 9.3, Number of Copies has been mailed, by U.S. Mail, postage

prepaid, to the District Attorney, Appellate Division, Comal County

Courthouse Annex, 150 S. Seguin Avenue Suite 307, New Braunfels,

Texas 73130, and to ths State Prosecuting Attorney, P.O.Box 12405

Austin, Texas 78711. On this 6th day of November , 2015.

a

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LAWRENCE

T0CJ # 1923479
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

November 14, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00364

- CR

Kenneth WILLIAMS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR4751 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due by September 7, 2022, and on September 6, 2022, appellant requested a thirty

- da y extension of time. We granted appellant’s motion and ordered his brief due by October 7, 2022. On October 6, 2022, appellant filed a second motion requesting an additional thirty

- day extension of time. We granted appellant’s motion, ordered

his brief due by November 7, 2022, and advised counsel further extensions of time would be disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances. On November 7, 2022, appellant filed a third motion requesting a thirty

- day extension of time. After consideration, we grant the motion and

order appellant to file his brief by December 7, 2022. Counsel is advised if he fails to file a brief by the date ordered, we will abate this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant or coun sel has abandoned the appeal. Counsel may further be ordered to appear before this court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned for failing to comply with this court’s order.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

c ourt on this 14th day of November, 2022

.

_________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
_____________

No. 96-1078ND

_____________

Patricia Elliott, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of North Dakota.

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner *

of Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: November 22, 1996

 Filed: November 27, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Elliott appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Elliott a waiver of

an overpayment of supplemental security income benefits. After careful

review of the parties' briefs and the administrative record, we affirm for

the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's recommendation adopted by the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6286

DAVID L. CARTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KATHLEEN SAWYER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-02-635-5-HC-H)

Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Carter appeals the district court orders and judgment

summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) action and denying

his motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the record, we

find Carter failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, we

affirm. 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>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
Article 9 financial data schedule is restated for 10% stock dividend declared
September 28, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      55,811,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         298,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                479,863,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                  1,038,129,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                 10,540,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,664,789,000
<DEPOSITS>                               1,353,762,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                82,323,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         22,081,000
<LONG-TERM>                                 30,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,250,000
<COMMON>                                       220,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 167,153,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,664,789,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             67,019,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           22,792,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               637,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            90,448,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          39,322,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          42,816,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       47,632,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                2,285,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           3,496,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             36,918,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             22,028,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  22,028,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,658,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.19
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,391,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 7,621,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               446,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            10,116,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                2,548,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   687,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           10,540,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        10,540,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7027

RAPHAEL TERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Corrections; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-265-PJM)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raphael Terry, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Terry v. Lanham, No. CA-96-265-PJM (D. Md. July 17, 1997). See

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997)

(No. 96-6298). 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 25, 2020

No. 04-20-00537-CV

IN RE Phillip RODRIGUEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On November 5, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. After 

considering the petition, which was filed without a record, this court concludes relator did not 

show he is entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

It is so ORDERED on November 25, 2020.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of November, 2020.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-CI-12089, styled Philip Rodriguez v. H.E.B. Grocery Store, L.P., et 

al., pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Larry Noll presiding.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Michael A. Ernst, Chief Financial Officer, of Prentiss Properties Trust (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”): 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section78o(d)); and 

 

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

 

/s/ Michael A. Ernst 

Michael A. Ernst 

Chief Financial Officer 

November 12, 2003 

 

STATE OF TEXAS§ 

COUNTY OF DALLAS§ 

 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of November, 2003. 

 

/s/ Lana Mann

Lana Mann 

November 12, 2003 

 

Notary Public 

My Commission Expires: 5/26/2005 

Official Seal 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, **or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,** has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IRON CITY EXCAVATING, INC,

Petitioner

v.

ANIMAL FRIENDS, INC.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 192 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001013167
<NAME>                      SMITH BARNEY Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                      80,750,936
<SECURITIES>                                                   496,138
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  275,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            81,522,475
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              81,522,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          938,370
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  80,584,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                81,522,475
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             1,176,554
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             1,004,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                172,069
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   172,069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     8.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0
        

</TABLE>