alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 99



REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2000, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income
and cash flows for the three-month and six-month periods ended September 30,
2000 and 1999. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States,
the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina
Marketing Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented herein), and, in our report dated April 19,
2000, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2000, is fairly stated, in all material respects,
in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Tampa, Florida
October 12, 2000
#### Cindy DUPRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN WEST FINANCIAL, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-56263

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Cindy Dupre, Pro Se

T.'Robert Finlay, Joshua Ryan Hernandez, Esquire, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Mountain West Financial, Inc.

John B. Sullivan, Esquire, Mary Kate Sullivan, Esquire, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Citibank, NA, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Aurora Loan Services, LLC

Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Quality Loan Services Corporation

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cindy Dupre appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), *Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim because Dupre failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Jones v. Wachovia Bank,*230 Cal.App.4th 935, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 28 (2014) (stating elements of promissory estoppel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdic*526tion over Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim after dismissing with prejudice Dupre’s federal claims. *See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,*521 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1367 (granting district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to those over which district courts have original jurisdiction).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dupre’s third amended complaint without further leave to amend. *See Cervantes,*656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
D.W., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
FST HOLDINGS 7 LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1460

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
David Lee HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1765

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

David Lee Hayes, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Carbajal v. State*, 75 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2011) ; *State v. King*, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982) ; *McDonald v. State*, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; *Doby v. State*, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Brown v. State*, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; *Mosely v. State*, 688 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ; *Desmond v. State*, 576 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ; *Budd v. State*, 477 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ; *Foss v. State*, 834 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ; *McMillan v. State*, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; *Hart v. State*, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rickey Gene Pippin

, * From the 297th District

Court of Tarrant County,

Trial Court No. 1224614D

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00032

- CR * August 21 , 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      352
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,387
<PP&E>                                          50,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,756)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,671
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,443
<SALES>                                         35,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,715
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,715
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
Jose M. MEDERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1534 

To prohibit the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from declaring certain emergencies or disasters for the purpose of imposing gun control. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. CLOUD (for himself, Mr. BUDD, Mr. PERRY, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. DUNCAN, 

Mr. NORMAN, Mr. BABIN, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. GUEST, Mr. 

CRAWFORD, Mr. ROY, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. 

WOMACK, Ms. HERRELL, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. ROSENDALE, 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. CLINE, Mr. 

DAVIDSON, Mr. PALMER, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. OWENS, 

Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. BUCK, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. KUSTOFF, Mr. 

STEWART, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. CLYDE, and Mr. HAGEDORN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the President and the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services from declaring certain emergencies or 

disasters for the purpose of imposing gun control. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1534 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting the Right 

3 to Keep and Bear Arms Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON DECLARATIONS BY PRESIDENT. 

5 The President (or any designee thereof) shall not, for 

6 the purpose of imposing gun control, declare an emergency 

7 pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

8 1601 et seq.) or an emergency or major disaster pursuant 

9 to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

10 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). 

11 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON DECLARATIONS BY HHS. 

12 The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

13 not, for the purpose of imposing gun control, declare a 

14 public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the 

15 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d). 

16 SEC. 4. FIREARMS POLICIES. 

17 Section 706(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re18 lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5207(a)) 

19 is amended— 

20 (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and in21 serting a semicolon; 

22 (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period and 

23 inserting a semicolon; and 

24 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(5) prohibit the manufacturing, sale, or trans26 fer of firearms; or 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1534 IH

1 ‘‘(6) prohibit the manufacturing, sale, or trans2 fer of ammunition.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Malcolm GAINEY, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 2018

Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Margaret Philips Zabijaka and Jack R. Wallace of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Winokur, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Paul DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-51

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Reginald Bryan SPELLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6255

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Reginald Bryan Spellman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Bryan Spellman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Spellman 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 *142materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-92176) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan, 1998 ACT Medical Stock
Plan, and 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of MedSource Technologies, Inc. of
our report dated July 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of MedSource Technologies,
Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2003.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of MedSource
Technologies, Inc. listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audit. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referenced above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 25, 2003
Exhibit 4.51

  

   

  

  Addendum No. 1

  to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 4th July 2018

  (the "MOA'')

  in respect of "MONT FORT" (the "Vessel'')

  between

  VLGC DELTA OWNING LTD. of Marshall Islands (the
      "Sellers")

  and

  GLOBAL MERIDIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED of Bermuda (the "Original Buyers")

  	 	 	 
	 	 	 


  

  

  
    
      	1.	
              The Original Buyers hereby nominate:-

            


    

  

  MERIDIAN 11 LIMITED (the "Buyers")

      Registered Office: Canon's Court, 22 Victoria Street, Hamilton, HM 12, Bermuda

  as the final buyers to complete the purchase and delivery of the Vessel as per the MOA and the Buyers
      hereby accept the nomination.

  
    
      	2.	
              The Sellers hereby agree to the above nomination.

            


    

  

  
    
      	3.	
              The Buyers hereby assume all the rights and obligations of the Original Buyers under the MOA.

            


    

  

  
    
      	4.	
              The Original Buyers hereby guarantee the due and punctual performance of the Buyers' obligations under the MOA.

            


    

  

  
    
      	5.	
              Except as otherwise provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the MOA shall remain unchanged and in full force.

            


    

  

  
    
      	6.	
              This Addendum No. 1 shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and Clause 16 (Law and Arbitration) of the MOA shall apply to this
                  Addendum No. 1 as if set out herein if full (mutatis mutandis).

            


    

  

  
    
      	7.	
              This Addendum No. 1 may be entered into in any counterparts which when taken together shall constitute one and same instrument.

            


    

  

  Date: 16th
      July 2018

  	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
          /s/ Georgios A. Kaklamanos

            

        	 	
          /s/ Phillip Anderson

        
	
          For and on behalf of

        	 	
          For and on behalf of

        
	
          the Sellers

        	 	
          the Original Buyers

        
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
          /s/ Phillip Anderson

        	 	 
	
          For and on behalf of

        	 	 
	
          the Buyers

        	 	 
	 	 	 


  

  

  S/Mont Fort/Addendum No. 1 with Buyers Comments
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

SHAWN HARRIS, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF 

PROBATION AND PAROLE, 

 Appellee 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

66 MAP 2014 

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 274 MD 

2014, dated 5/22/14 (exited 5/23/14), 

dismissing the Appellant’s Petition for 

Review 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2014, the direct appeal is QUASHED. 

The matter is treated as a Petition for Allowance of Appeal, see McMahon v. Pa. Bd. of 

Probation & Parole, 470 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1983), and is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1



                          APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
               EXHIBIT 11.1-COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS(LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended September 30,     Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                            1998               1997             1998                1997
                                                         ------------       ------------     -----------         -----------
<S>                                                      <C>                <C>              <C>                 <C>
Income applicable to common shares:

Net loss                                                     $(1,699)           $(5,038)        $(2,694)          $(12,676)

                                                         ------------       ------------     -----------         ----------
        Loss applicable to common shares                     $(1,699)           $(5,038)        $(2,694)          $(12,676)
                                                         ============       ============     ===========         ==========


  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding         7,292              7,258           7,292              7,258

        Weighted average common shares                         7,292              7,258           7,292              7,258
                                                         ============       ============     ===========         ==========


  Basic and diluted net loss per common share                 $(0.23)            $(0.69)         $(0.37)            $(1.75)
                                                         ============       ============     ===========         ==========
</TABLE>





                                       15
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHIROMED INJURY CENTER, P.A. a/a/o Veralucia Campana, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2885

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
John S. HASKELL, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Unni HASKELL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5060

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The respondent's motion for appellate attorney's fees is remanded to the trial court. If the respondent establishes her entitlement pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2013), and Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), the trial court is authorized to award her all or a portion of the reasonable appellate attorney's fees. See Rados v. Rados, 791 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In the motion for appellate attorney's fees, the respondent also sought costs. The respondent's request for costs is stricken without prejudice to the respondent to file a timely motion with the lower tribunal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(a).
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE01295A8

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Matthew Walter MERRILL v. STATE

CR-15-1150

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00056

- CV

NERISSA GAINES APPELLANT

V.

BRIAN HARDWICK APPELLEE

------------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2016

- 000041

- 1

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


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ On July 27, 2017, August 29, 2016, and October 7, 2016, we notified

appellant that her brief did not comply and her amended brief had not been filed
as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). In our third letter dated October 7, 2016, w e stated that failure to file an
amended brief by Oc tober 17, 2016, would result in the striking of her

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

noncompliant brief and dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a),

38.9(a), 42.3. W e have not received any response

. Because appellant ’ s amended brief has not been filed as directed by this

co urt , we strike the noncompliant brief filed on July 25, 2016, and we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b)

– (c) , 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 17, 2016