alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo)

KPMG
2001 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Independent Auditors' Report

The Board of Directors
First Nationwide Mortgage Corporation:

We  have  examined  management's   assertion  about  First  Nationwide  Mortgage
Corporation's  (the Company's)  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards
set forth in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of  America's  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers, as of and for the year ended December
31, 1998  included  in the  accompanying  management  assertion.  Management  is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's  assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the Company has  complied in all
material respects with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year ended December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects:

KPMG LLP

January 22,1999

(logo)
1

Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Jairam, Seree [SJAIRAM@broward.org]

Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:08 AM

To: Schaffner, Karen S.

Subject: RE: RTR MVL: final telecon summary for FL Broward Co. AQD

Karen, 

The markup Looks OK. 

Seree Jairam, P.E. 

Pollution Prevention, Remediation and Air Quality Division 

1 North University Drive, Suite 203 

Plantation, FL 33324-2038 

Office: 954-519-1248 • FAX 954-519-1495 

www.broward.org

From: Schaffner, Karen S. [mailto:ksschaffner@rti.org] 

Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:08 AM 

To: Jairam, Seree 

Cc: Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RTR MVL: final telecon summary for FL Broward Co. AQD 

Hi Seree: I incorporated your changes from last Friday and included a few revisions based on our talk this morning. See 

the markup attached. If no other changes, I will finalize and send you a clean copy. Thank you, Karen 

Karen Schaffner

Air Quality Engineering Group

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

phone: (919) 316 3740

fax: (919) 541 7155
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SCANTEK
MEDICAL INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,890
<SECURITIES>                                 1,706,408
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     54,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,479,123
<PP&E>                                         995,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,947,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,534,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        17,220
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     396,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,947,763
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               594,792
<CGS>                                           57,415
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  276,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                220,636
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            220,636
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   220,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        


</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM B. THOMPSON *v.*ARCHIBALD T. McNAIR and others.

An injunction, obtained by a plaintiff at law, in order to preserve property in litigation, until the determination of the suit at law, having been dissolved : *Held,*that no reference to ascertain damages sustained by the defendant because of such injunction, or other proceedings upon the injunction bond, could be had until after the determination of the suit at law.

*(Falls*v. *McAfee,*2 Ire. 236, approved.)

Exceptions, to a report in Equity, tried before *Buxton, J.,*at July Special Term 1869, of Bobeson Court.

The plaintiff had brought au action of *Trespass,*Q O. E., against the defendants, for injury to certain turpentine lands, and in order to preserve the property during the pending of such suit, had also obtained an injunction against them. At Spring Term 1867, the injunction was dissolved because the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendants were insolvent, and upon application by the defendants, an order of reference was made to ascertain the damages sustained by the defendants, by reason of the improper suing out of the injunction.

The Commissioner passed upon the titles of the parties, and ascertained the damages to be $1,225.00. The report having been excepted to by the plaintiff, his Honor set it aside, and the defendants appealed.

*N. A. McLean*and *W. McKay,*for the appellants.

*Leitch, contra.*

Pearson, 0. J.

*Falls*v. *McAffee,*2 Ire. 236, is decissive of this case. It cannot be known judicially that the injunction was wrongfully sued out, until the action at law is disposed of. Suppose the defendant should he allowed to have judgment in this proceeding, on the ground that there *449was not probable cause, and afterwards the action at law be decided in favor of the plaintiff, he would be entitled to recover back the very damages that the defendant now seeks to recover, and the record of the Court would be inconsistent and contradictory.

An injunction in aid of an action at law, to preserve the property pending the suit, is of rare occurrence. The fact' that in order to make a report, the Commissioner in Equity felt constrained to pass upon the legal title in anticipation of the judgment in the suit at law, presents a legal absurdity, which the Courts avoid in judicial proceedings. An analogy may be found in the action for malicious prosecution. It is settled that the action cannot be maintained until the indictment is finally disposed of, either by an acquittal or a *not. pros.*Otherwise, the defendant might recover damages and be afterwards convicted of the offence, and thus the record be made to contradict itself.

We concur with his Honor in the Court below.

Of course the rights of the defendant, if he has any, will not be affected by refusing to allow him to proceed on the injunction bond until the action at law is disposed of. This order is made without prejudice, and the defendant will be at liberty to proceed hereafter, as he may be advised.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
#                                                     Christopher M  Abate                                            

### 

## Contact

abatecm@ornl.gov
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25376]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m. EDT, November 19, 2024.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The one item is open to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 
72737 Highway Investigation Report--Box Truck Centerline Crossover 
Collision With Bus, Louisville, NY, January 28, 2023

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#76141f181115361802051458111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4022292e2723002e3433226e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Media Information Contact: Sarah Sulick by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3c0d2c1d2db9dc0c6dfdad0d8f3ddc7c0d19dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="42312330232a6c31372e2b2129022c3631206c252d34">[email protected]</span></a> or at (202) 314-6100.
    The public may view it through a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``Upcoming Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.
    Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also 
available at www.ntsb.gov.
    The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

     Dated: October 28, 2024.
LaSean R. McCray,
Assistant Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-25376 Filed 10-28-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 2.1**
We hereby undertake to furnish a copy of the instruments defining the rights of holders of ourloans, bonds and notes (see detailed list below) upon request of the Securities and ExchangeCommission.       **Total**   **USD** Convertible bonds – 2000  23,100 Mandatory Convertible Bonds 2002/2005  1,896 7% Convertible bonds 2004/ 2007  6,822 11% Callable bond 2004/ 2009  114,322 1998 Notes and Loans (USD 350 million)  350,000 Floating Rate Loan Facility  — USD 99.25 million Fortis facility  99,250     **Total**  **595,390**     
F-56
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion of our
reports dated January 24, 2001, except with respect to Note 3 which is dated
February 27, 2001 included in HeadHunter.NET, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000 as well as the incorporation by reference
of such reports into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File
No. 333-86485, 333-94027, and 333-47146.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
February 27, 2001
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.16    
  


 
 

PROMISSORY NOTE    
  



	Amount $55,000.00	 	August 17, 2001





    For
value received, the undersigned, GeoPetro Resources Company ("Payor"), hereby promises to pay on demand to Stuart J. Doshi ("Holder") the principal sum of Fifty Five Thousand
Dollars ($55,000.00) with interest from August 17, 2001 at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum, payable upon repayment of the loan. 



	Signed by:
 GeoPetro Resources Company	 	 
	

 J. Chris Steinhauser

Chief Financial Officer	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.16


PROMISSORY NOTE
EXHIBIT 13.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Garofalo, Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|                  |  |     |  |                                                                   
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Toronto, Canada   |  | By: |  | /s/ David
Garofalo                                                
|December 14, 2005 |  |     |  | David Garofalo Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished o the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

** **

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-61900 of StressgenBiotechnologies Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated February 12, 2004,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stressgen BiotechnologiesCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte  & Touche LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| San Diego,  California         |
| February 19,  2004             |

 

----
#### D. G. MORISEY v. JOHN E. SWINSON.

*Petition to Rehear*— Mortgagee *in Possession*— Rents *and Profits.*

On the former hearing, this Court overlooked the defendant’s exception that the referee did not charge the plaintiff mortgagee in possession with rents and profits up to February Term, 1889, the date of' trial: *Held,*that the defendant is entitled to .the rents and profits, as claimed, but, as the facts are in some doubt, a further account should be taken and the judgment corrected so as to conform to the facts.

Petition by defendant to rehear the decision of this, case, made at September Term, 1889. (See 104 N. C., 555).

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

*Mr. W. R. Alien,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. H. L. Stevens,*for defendant (petitioner).

MerrimoN, C. J.:

This is an application to rehear the case of *Morisey*v. *Swinson,*104 N. C., 555, decided at the last term, upon the ground that the Court failed to advert to the third exception of the defendant therein to the report of the referee, which exception was in these words: “The referee errs in 'stopping the accounting for the rents and profits of the mortgage premises at 1884, when the plaintiff is still in possession of the mortgage premises, cultivating the lands and using the store-house for a guano-house, and is in receipt of the rents and profits up to February Term, 1889. It seems that this exception may have been overlooked. The record was voluminous, confused, and, to some extent, misleading. The plaintiff excepted to the report mentioned, on the ground that rents were allowed to the defendant up to the time of the trial, and this may have led the Court to lose sight of the defendant’s exception to the contrary. The plaintiff now earnestly insists that rents were allowed *222to the defendant as claimed by him. It seems to us otherwise.

This Court, overruling the plaintiff’s exception, decided that the defendant was entitled to rents for the time claimed by him. If the account did not embrace them for that time, it should have done so. As the matter is in some doubt, the judgment of this Court should direct the Court below to inquire how the fact is, and, if need be, direct a further account to be taken as to the rents, and correct the judgment so as to make it conform to the facts as, upon inquiry, they may appear to be.

The case specified in the petition must be reheard, and the judgment therein of this Court modified in accordance with this opinion, and, as so modified, certified to the Superior Court, to the end that further steps may be taken there in the action, according to law.

Petition allowed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RM2024-9; Order No. 7817]
          - RIN 3211-AA39

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This document acknowledges that the Commission will be conducting one or more off-the-record technical conferences to attain information that the Commission requires to effectively review the Postal Service's Service Performance Measurement (SPM) system.

# DATES:

*Technical Conference:*                         January 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time, Virtual.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket No. RM2024-9 was initiated by the Commission to review the accuracy, reliability, and representativeness of the Postal Service's SPM system. SPM produces composite service performance results that are generated using several different data sources and data processing methods. The service performance results produced by SPM are an amalgamation of granular and siloed evaluations of performance for the individual segments of mail collection (First Mile), mail processing (Processing Duration), and mail delivery (Last Mile). Given recent changes in operations and mail mix, the Commission has concerns about the continued validity of the design and implementation of each of these three systems, as well as how the systems function collectively as a whole.

                    Commission Information Request No. 3 sought to obtain,                     *inter alia,*                     the programming code associated with SPM, as well as a real-world example of the relevant SPM calculations being performed. The Postal Service moved for reconsideration, arguing that providing the information requested would be burdensome, would raise security concerns, and might not be technically feasible. The Postal Service requested a technical conference to discuss these issues, which the Commission found good cause to grant.                

By the Commission.

Jennie L. Jbara,

Primary Certifying Official.

[FR Doc. 2024-25326 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
#### B. M. ISLER v. HARRIET M. DEWEY and others.

*Praetiee*— Continúame.

Where the Court below continued an action, the pleadings raising issues to be tried either by a jury or by 'the Court, and the Court holding that a trial could hot then be had ; *Held,*not to be error.

Appeal from an Order of Continuance made at Spring Term, 1878, of "Wayse Superior Court, by *Hare, J.*

The case states: This cause was called for trial by plaintiff’s counsel, after the discharge of the jury, when the defendants’ counsel objected, for that, an issue of fact was raised by the pleadings requiring the intervention of a jury, .and insisted on a continuance. In reply to this the plaintiff insisted that defendants were estopped by proceedings heretofore had in an action between the same parties, but Iiis Honor held otherwise and ordered the continuance, from, which ruling the plaintiff appealed.

*2
      *Mr. 8. W.*Isler, for plaintiff.

*Mr. A. K. Smedes,*for defendants.

Read®, J.

The action is for a tract of land and for $400 a year for nine years for use and occupation.

When the case was called below the jury had been discharged (for the term as we suppose), and the defendant moved for a continuance which the plaintiff resisted upon the ground that the issue which would seem to require a jury, *e. g.*the value of the use and occupation, had been adjudicated in a former action between the parties, and therefore no jury was necessary. All this was denied by the defendant. What was adjudicated in another suit between the parties was of course a matter of fact to be determined on *thAtrial,*and not upon a motion for *continuance.*

The plaintiff insists that the evidence of what was adjudicated in a former action is a matter of record, and therefore to be determined by the Judge and not by the jury. Take that to be so for the sake of the argument, still it is to be determined *on the*trial, and not before. The pleadings certainly raise issues, and they can only be détermined on the trial, which trial His Honor held could not then be had. Nothing appears in the case to satisfy this Court that His Honor erred in his ruling, and therefore we affirm his judgment.

The uselessness of appealing from a continuance will be understood, if it be considered that the appeal itself works a continuance. If we could have sustained the objection to the appeal, still the case could not stand, for trial until the next term of the Court below. And that would have been the result if there had been no appeal.

No error.

Per Curium. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         103,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,091,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,278,442
<PP&E>                                       9,901,686
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,996,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,548,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,401,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,475,260
<COMMON>                                         1,936
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,548,660
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,726,386
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,113,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,169,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             388,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (944,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (944,839)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>