alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO) Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 N. Tryon Street
Suite 5400
Charlotte NC 28202
Telephone (704)344 7500

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

February 28, 2000

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of Bank of America, N.A.

We have examined management's assertion about compliance by BA Mortgage, LLC and
the Mortgage  division of Bank of America,  N.A.(collectively,  the  "Company"),
which together comprise an operating division of Bank of America, N.A., with the
minimum servicing standards (the "Standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
("USAP")  as of and for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1999  included  in the
accompanying  management assertion,  attached hereto as Exhibit I. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the 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
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 Standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that, except as indicated in Exhibit I,
the Company  complied with the  aforementioned  Standards as of and for the year
ended December 31,1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.74


February 1, 2002

Leonard F. Ferro
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer

Galey & Lord, Inc.
P.O. Box 35528
Greensboro, NC

Dear Sir:

Note B of Notes to consolidated balance sheets of Galey & Lord, Inc. as of
December 29, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the three months ended
December 29, 2001 included in its Form 10-Q for the three months ended December
29, 2001 describes a change in the method of accounting for inventories from the
first-in, first-out method of valuing inventory to the last-in, last out method
of valuing inventory for its Swift Denim business. We conclude that such change
in the method of accounting is to an acceptable alternative method which, based
on your business judgment to make this change and for the stated reasons, is
preferable in your circumstances. We have not conducted an audit in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards of any financial statements of the
Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to September 29, 2001, and
therefore we do not express any opinion on any financial statements of Galey &
Lord, Inc. subsequent to that date.




                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     Ernst & Young LLP
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
     I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne DevelopmentCorporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 00-A, L.P.(the “Registrant”), certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mewbourne EnergyPartners, 00-A, L.P.
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual reportis being prepared;
b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to thefiling date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data andhave identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknessesin internal controls; and
b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and
     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated inthis annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: March 29, 2004.     /s/ J. Roe Buckley   J. Roe Buckley Chief Financial Officer Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of the Registrant
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 30, 2014

NO. 03-12-00702-CV

Cynthia Schlapper, Appellant

v.

Rand K. Forest and Crosswater Yacht Club, L.P., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 5, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,184
<INVENTORY>                                     19,951
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,926
<PP&E>                                          11,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,592
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,400
<SALES>                                         42,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,534
<CGS>                                           28,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (302)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (453)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (453)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MIGUEL V. RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2207

[December 28, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.853 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 95-15728CF10A.

Miguel V. Rodriguez, Raiford, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio YAHUACA, also known as Junior Yahuaca, also known as Antonio Yahuaca, Jr., also known as Tony Antonio Yahuaca, also known as Tony Yahuaca, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50838 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Angela Jennison Moore, Law Office of Angela J. Moore, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Antonio Yahuaca appeals the 240-month below-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Because Yahuaca committed the offense after two prior felony convictions for controlled substance offenses, his guidelines range was calculated pursuant to the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender guideline. He now argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his offense. He also contends that his presentence investigation report (PSR) should not have included two § 2D1.1 offense-level enhancements. We review these unpreserved issues for plain error. *See United States v. Ebron,*683 F.3d 105, 155 (5th Cir. 2012); *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).

Yahuaca has failed to establish any error, let alone plain error. His below-guidelines 240-month sentence was not grossly *187disproportionate to the severity of his controlled substance offense. *See United States v. Mills,*843 F.3d 210, 217 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1601, 197 L.Ed.2d 726 (2017) (No. 16-8524); *see also Rummel v. Estelle,*445 U.S. 263, 265-67, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980). The § 2D1.1 offense-level enhancements reflected in his PSR were not included in the enhanced career-offender guidelines range considered by the district court at sentencing, so his challenge to those enhancements is likewise meritless.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 5th Cm. R, 47.5,4,
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certificate Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Christopher W. Wolf, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of the
Company, 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ Christopher W. WolfChristopher W. WolfExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)August 16, 2004
 28
GOVERNMENT TRUST & HOLDING CORPORATION, and General Lending Corporation, Appellants, v. GALLOWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D17-2235

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3


Deloitte & Touche LLP
BCE Place
181 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON  M5J 2V1
Canada

Tel: (416) 601 6150
Fax: (416) 601 6151
www.deloitte.ca

                                                        [DELOITTE & TOUCHE LOGO]


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use of our report dated February 5, 2002, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
---------------------------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Toronto, Ontario
March 20, 2002
#### Ronald Alex STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Connie S. BISBEE; Darla Foley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15454

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Ronald Alex Stevenson, Pro Se

*251Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Ronald Alex Stevenson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and First Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Wilhelm v. Raiman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Watison v. Carter,*668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Stevenson’s equal protection claim relating to potential considerations at a future parole board hearing was proper because Stevenson failed to allege facts sufficient to establish an injury as required for Article III standing. *See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (identifying three core requirements for standing under Article III); *see also Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,*568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (“[TJhreatened injury must be *certainly impending*to constitute injury in fact, and ... allegations of *possible*future injury are not sufficient.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Stevenson’s First Amendment claim because success in Stevenson’s claim would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his confinement or its duration, and Stevenson failed to allege that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. *See Wilkinson v. Dotson,*544 U.S. 74, 80-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (a prisoner’s § 1983 claim is barred if success “would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]” unless “the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (AS RESTATED) AS AT AND FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,726
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,177
<PP&E>                                         150,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,454
<SALES>                                        280,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,115
<CGS>                                          242,868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (747)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,383
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (467)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,943
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,465
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
#### SUN OIL COMPANY, as owner of the M.V. Atlantic Sun, Libellant-Appellee, v. The S.S. GEORGEL, her engines, boilers, etc., v. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, Respondent-Appellant. CENTRAL NAVIGATION CORPORATION OF MONROVIA, as owner of the S.S. Georgel, Cross-Libellant-Appellant, v. The M.V. ATLANTIC SUN, her engines, boilers, etc., v. SUN OIL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent-Appellee.

No. 61, Docket 30084.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 28, 1966.

Decided Dec. 20, 1966.

Alfred A. Lohne, New York City (Mendes & Mount, and Brendan J. Connolly, New York City, on the brief), for libellant-cross-respondent-appellee.

James D. Hanlon, New York City (Zock, Petrie, Sheneman & Reid, and John R. Sheneman, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-cross-libellant-appellant.

Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The findings in Judge Levet’s careful and thorough opinion were fully supported by the evidence and there was no error in the conclusions of law. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3678

___________ Sherille Harris, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States Postal Service; John E. * Potter, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2006 Filed: February 13, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sherille Harris, an African-American female, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in he r employment-discrimination action against the United States Postal Service brought unde r Title VII. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha , 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Harris’s allegations were either time-barred or me ritless, for the reasons explained in the district court’s-2- opinion. We also decline to consider Harris’s newly raised allegations on appeal. See Stone v. Harry , 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Jeffery S. BLACKSHEAR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DJ ANDREWS and Julie Jones, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4008

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Theresa BROOKE, a married woman dealing with her sole and separate claim, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The IRVINE COMPANY, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business as The Resort at Pelican Hill, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56489

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017

Peter Kristofer Strojnik, The Strojnik Firm LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gregory Francis Hurley, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Theresa Brooke appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing her action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

In her opening brief, Brooke does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of her ADA claim for lack of standing or declination of supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, and therefore Brooke waived any such challenge. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). However, Brooke’s claims should have been dismissed without prejudice. *See Missouri ex reí Koster v. Harris,*847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017). (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice); *Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,*40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal based on declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims should be without prejudice). We vacate the judgment to the extent it dismisses Brooke’s complaint with prejudice and remand for the sole purpose of entering judgment without prejudice.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

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