alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia
Vale do Rio Doce for the year ended December 31, 2001 of our report dated March
26, 2002, relating to the balance sheet of Vale Overseas Ltd., which appears in
such Annual Report. We also consent to the references to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Annual Report


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

PricewaterhouseCoopers
Auditores Independentes

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
June 26, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (323)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,918
<PP&E>                                           4,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,102)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,807
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,831
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,752)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,115
<SALES>                                          4,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,089
<CGS>                                            1,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (132)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 35.1
            SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
   GMACM HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-HE5 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of November 29,
2006, (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"), among GMAC Mortgage, LLC,
as servicer,  GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE5,  as the issuing entity, and
The Bank of New York Trust  Company,  N.A.,  as indenture  trustee,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

 IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  has duly  executed  this
Certificate this 26th day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      -------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6304 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 1, 2016 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 501 North Main Street in Florence, Arizona, 

as the ‘‘Adolfo ‘Harpo’ Celaya Post Office’’. 

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


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6304 RDS

1 SECTION 1. ADOLFO ‘‘HARPO’’ CELAYA POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 501 North Main Street in Flor4 ence, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Adolfo ‘Harpo’ Celaya Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Adolfo ‘Harpo’ Celaya 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Garcia FUERTES, a/k/a Kerlin Esquivel-Fuentes, a/k/a Flaco, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6939

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Kevin Garcia Fuertes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. .

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Garcia Fuertes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Fuertes 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*
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                         WIRELESS XCESSORIES GROUP, INC.
                         ------------------------------

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the "report"),
I, Stephen Rade, 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:

     (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.

                                             By:  /s/  Stephen  Rade
                                             -----------------------
                                             Stephen  Rade
                                             Chief  Executive  Officer
                                             November  14,  2002






                                       17
<PAGE>
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1105 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1105

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1105/2003 of 26 May 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds **

*
Official Journal L 158 , 27/06/2003 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1105/2003

of 26 May 2003

amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 161 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(3),

After consulting the Committee of the Regions,

Whereas:

(1) The provisions of Article 47(2) and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(4) respectively provide for recourse to the Type I Committee procedure and to the Type IIa and IIb procedures established by Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(5).

(2) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(6) repealed and replaced Decision 87/373/EEC.

(3) In accordance with the joint statement of the Council and of the Commission(7) on Decision 1999/468/EC, the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers, provided for pursuant to Decision 87/373/EEC, should be adapted in order to bring them into line with the provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(4) The necessary measures should be taken to bring into line Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 with Decision 1999/468/EC.

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 should therefore be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 shall be replaced by the following:

"2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.

3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.

The period laid down in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at one month.

3a. The committees shall adopt their rules of procedure."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 May 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Drys

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2003, p. 383.

(2) Assent given on 11.3.2003 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, p. 128.

(4) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 197, 18.7.1987, p. 33.

(6) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(7) OJ C 203, 17.7.1999, p. 1.
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Adam Zive, certifythat:

 

1.	    I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Loreto Resources Corporation.

 

2.	    Based on my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.	    Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.	    I am responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant andhave;

 

(a)	  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)	  Designed suchinternal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under your supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)	  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(d)	  Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the fourth quarterof the registrant’s 2011 fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.	    I have disclosed,based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

  (a)	  All significantdeficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,****summarize and report financial information;and

 

  (b)	  Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
<PAGE>

                       [LOGO OF ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS]


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

August 1, 2001


Mr. Joseph J. Lyndon
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
15030 Avenue of Science, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92128


Re:  Supplemental Compensation
     -------------------------


Dear Joe:

As you know, when you were originally hired by Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
("Accredited"), it was contemplated that a portion of your compensation package
for successful performance would consist of obtaining a substantial ownership
position in Accredited at a fairly limited cost to you. As you are also aware,
the stock option grants which you have received from Accredited to achieve such
ownership position do not achieve the economic results contemplated by you and
Accredited with respect to such ownership position. In order to rectify that
situation, Accredited has agreed to pay you, during your continued employment
with Accredited, supplemental compensation payments of $238,000 each on August
1, 2002, and on each August 1 thereafter through August 1, 2005. This
supplemental compensation shall be in addition to and shall have no impact upon
the base salary and bonus to which you are already otherwise entitled, but shall
not in anyway be deemed to be a guaranty of your continued employment with
Accredited, such employment continuing to be "at will". If your employment with
Accredited should terminate before August 1, 2005, you shall be entitled, upon
such termination, to a portion of the supplemental compensation payable on the
following August 1, prorated on the basis of the number of days elapsed since
the preceding August 1. Any subsequent payments shall be forfeited.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.

Sincerely,


/s/ James A. Konrath
--------------------
James A. Konrath
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.219



$807,000.00                                                   New York, New York
                                                              May 9, 2002


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a California
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby unconditionally
PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor, New York,
NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may designate
from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America
and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Eight Hundred Seven
Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($807,000.00), together with interest on the unpaid
principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from the date
hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus 3.0%, or
the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

         The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

         Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

         Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

         Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

         This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

         All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

         This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.




                                        Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                        By: /S/ Kathleen Terry
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Patrick O’Neal JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; J. Chavers, Director of Operations; R. Noland, SPM UTMB, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-20449

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 5, 2017

Patrick O’Neal Jackson, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick O’Neal Jackson, Texas prisoner # 01861878, filed this civil rights action alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by delays in treatment for a fungal infection. He alleges the delays in treatment occurred between June and December 2015. He alleges these delays caused him pain and suffering due to itching, swelling, and bleeding of the infected area. Jackson also alleges that none of the treatments he’s received have been effectiye. He admits to being seen and treated for this problem three times in the June to December timeframe.

The district court dismissed Jackson s complaint because it found it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which *313relief may be granted. Therefore, this court reviews the dismissal *de novo. Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Detention Center,*858 F.3d 307, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2017). This court has carefully considered this appeal in light of Appellant’s brief and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court. Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 94

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the consideration

of retroactive tax increases.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. LOTT, Mr.

KEMPTHORNE, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. WARNER), introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of

August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee

have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit

the consideration of retroactive tax increases.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDG4 ET ACT OF 1974.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional

6 Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the

7 following:
2

•S 94 RIS

1 ‘‘PROHIBITION ON THE CONSIDERATION OF RETROACTIVE

2 TAX INCREASES

3 ‘‘SEC. 314. (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order

4 in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider

5 any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con6 ference report, that increases a tax and applies such in7 crease to taxable years beginning before the date of the

8 enactment of the law.

9 ‘‘(b) INCREASES A TAX.—The term ‘increases a tax’

10 shall include a change in any rate of tax, deduction, ex11 emption, credit, exclusion, or similar change to the Inter12 nal Revenue Code of 1986 that will result in an obligation

13 to pay a larger tax.’’.

14 (b) SUPERMAJORITY POINT OF ORDER.—Subsections

15 (c) and (d) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget

16 Act of 1974 are amended by inserting ‘‘314,’’ after

17 ‘‘313,’’.

Æ