alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23(b)

INFORMATION CONCERNING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

We have not been able to obtain, after reasonable efforts, the re-issued report or consent of Arthur Andersen LLP related to the 2001 and 2000 financial statements including in this annual report on Form 10-K.  Therefore, we have included a copy of their previously issued report.  Additionally, certain 2001 and 2000 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2002 presentation.  Such reclassifications have not been reviewed or evaluated by the predecessor auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP.

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 allows, under certain circumstances, a person acquiring a security to assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.  Because Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to being named in this Form 10-K, it will not be liable, and you will not be able to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen LLP, under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements or omissions of material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP.
Brian Keith CHESSER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3391

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Stricken.
#### Vance Edward JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FORTUNE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15965

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 30, 2017

Vance Edward Johnson, Pro Se

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vance Edward Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (2012), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his chronic pain. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We reject as without merit Johnson’s contention that the district court improperly failed to consider his objections to the findings and recommendations.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,708,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  894,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (38,833)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,190,789
<PP&E>                                         320,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                (152,945)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,424,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,706,441
<BONDS>                                        980,692
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       131,444
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,764,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,424,258
<SALES>                                      1,231,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,231,202
<CGS>                                          965,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  965,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,123,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (38,833)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             856,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,254,238
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,154,238
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,154,238
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56



</TABLE>
#### Richard Lee CURRY, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7013

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Richard Lee Curry, Appellant Pro Se.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*223PER CURIAM:

Richard Lee Curry, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, - and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

January 16, 2015

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta

For LAX-PVG Service

Docket DOT-OST-2015-0005

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Paul Gretch, DOT

Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 Ben Taylor, DOT

info@airlineinfo.com
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ J. Donald Boggus, Jr.J. Donald Boggus, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer May 15, 2006
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3 MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                13,358
<SECURITIES>                          28,118
<RECEIVABLES>                        225,456
<ALLOWANCES>                           7,133
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       313,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                              134,588
<COMMON>                                  69
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                            86,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         313,355
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       11,075
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     4,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        3,703
<INCOME-TAX>                           1,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    2,278
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           2,278
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .32
        

</TABLE>
[4910-13-PJ

700,701, & 702) Airplanes, Model CL-600-2DI5 (Regional Jet Series 705) Airplanes,

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2CIO (Regional Jet Serie

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1109; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-155-AD; Amendme

\05q7 03 -i3

39-*****; AD 2011-**-**J

OArE

I--:LI-/I

OATE

RIN 2120-AA64

14 CFR Part 39

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products tis ,

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation (MeAl)

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

""UTlNG SYMOOL

Rudder Travel Limiter (RTL) return spring, part number (pIN)

E0650-069-2750S, failed prior to completion of the required endurance

test. In addition, the replacement RTL return spring, PIN 670-93465-1

* * * was found to be susceptible to chafing on the primary actuator,

which could also result in eventual domlant spring failure. There are two

return springs in the RTL and if both springs failed, a subsequent

mechanical disconnect of the RTL components would result in an

un annuncIated failure of the RTL. This, in turn, would pemlit an increase

of rudder authority beyond normal structural limits and, in the event ofa

strong rudder input, controllability of the aeroplane could be affected.

OIOU1JNGS'MWC

* * * * * * *

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY b U,S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: '995 - 159-2'1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of The BISYS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the quarter ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          42,678
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,255
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,540
<PP&E>                                          51,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,899
<BONDS>                                          1,642
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,946
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   279
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,778
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,112
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,666
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,666
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29<F1>
<FN>
<F1>We have calculated earnings per share amounts in accordance with FAS 128
"Earnings Per Share". We have entered basic and diluted amounts in place of
primary and fully diluted, respectively.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1
                             Selected Information
                              Relating to Series
                    1994-1 Certificates, Series 1995-1
                       Certificates, Series 1996-1
                Certificates, Series 1996-2 Certificates, and
                       Series 1997-1 Certificates from
                    January 1, 1999 through March 31, 1999
                 --------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                Series 1994-1    Series 1995-1     Series 1996-1   Series 1996-2    Series 1997-1
                Floating Rate    6.50% Auto        5.50% Auto      Floating Rate    Floating Rate
                Loan Asset       Loan Asset        Loan Asset      Loan Asset       Loan Asset
                Backed           Backed            Backed          Backed           Backed
                Certificates     Certificates      Certificates    Certificates     Certificates
                ------------     -------------     -------------   ------------     ------------

<S>             <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>


Interest
Paid            $ 13,131,936.67   $ 17,710,069.47 $ 10,537,500.01  $ 13,016,007.46   $  9,737,179.17

Servicing
Fee Paid        $  2,499,999.99   $  2,499,999.99 $  2,000,000.01  $  2,400,000.00   $  1,875,000.00










</TABLE>

                                             -10-
MEMORANDUM 

May 5, 2009 

To: R. Frazier 

Via: K. Kunaniec 

From: T. Underwood 

Re: Outside Test NTV-634; February 4 and 17, 2009 source test 

Site No: A4449 

Plant No: 4449; Electro-Coatings 

Emission pt: P-1; Exhaust of A-9 which abates A-6, A-7 and A-8 

Source No: S-2, A-6; Plating tank 1; Scrubber 1 

Source No: S-4. A-7; Plating tank 2; Scrubber 2 

Source No: S-8, A-8; Plating tank 3; Scrubber 3 

Abated by: A-9; Filter 

A/C No: 14348 

Cond. No. 23126, Reg. 11-8; Cr +6 0.0015 mg/A-hr 

By: Datalab 

I have reviewed the source test report cited above and note the following: 

1) Source test was properly notified (NST-1616). 

2) I did not witness the test. 

3) The testing appears to have been conducted by personnel familiar with 

standard source testing protocols and technique. 

4) Quality assurance procedures were adequate to assure data integrity. 

5) Results of that testing are that quantified emissions were in compliance with the 

emission limits cited above. 

These sources were in compliance with District Regulations. 
NTV-634
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Annual Report of SED International Holdings,
Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark Diamond, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company, and for, the periods presented in this Report.

         Dated: October 3, 2003

                                        /s/ Mark Diamond
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Mark Diamond
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)


         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate document.
#### Jonathan BURRS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALTER KIDDIE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2419

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 13, 2017

Jonathan Burrs, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin D. Briggs, Salomon Laguerre, SEYFARTH SBAW, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Frederick Thomas Smith, SEY-FARTH SHAW, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Burrs, Sr., appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing his claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Burrs v. Walter Kiddie Portable Equip., Inc.,*No. 1:16-cv-01018-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 5, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00644-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-24757

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed June 7, 2019 in a suit to modify the 

parent-child relationship. The notice of appeal was filed August 21, 2019. No clerk’s 

record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court that appellant, M.S., did not make arrangements to pay for the 

record. On October 14, 2019, the court notified all parties of the court’s intention to 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid 

or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of 

payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). No such proof has been filed.
2

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) 

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant failed to comply with 

notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
David Lee HOWELL, DOC# T44073, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D16-2501

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 9, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134096 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134096 

 COA: 274189 

Livingston CC: 95-008878-FH 

THOMAS EDWARD BYRD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1022 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
No. 07-15-00359-CR

Deshaun Medlock

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 54th District Court 

 of McLennan County

July 27, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 27, 2017, it is ordered, adjudged 

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which 

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED EILEEN GLOSTER ,

Appellant ,
v. Cas e No. 5D 21 -3022 LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 993 -A STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed August 9, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Stephen E. T oner, Jr., Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. EVANDER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.