alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2









Report Of Independent

Registered Public Accounting Firm



Board of Directors

Structured Obligations Corporation

New York, New York



We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S.
      Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2003-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the
      Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1 for the year ended December 31, 2019. Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
      (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those requirements described above 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 of Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with specified requirements.



In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements
      described above of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2019.



This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Depositor, the Trustee, the Securities and
      Exchange Commission, and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.







March 13, 2020

























---
# C_2020193EN.01004901.xml

| 9.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/49

---

Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts

(2020/C 193/12)

On 13 December 2019 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

This request, made by SJ AB, concerns activities relating to the provision of railway passenger transport in Sweden. The relevant notice was published on page number 11 of OJ C 53 of 17 February 2020. The initial deadline was 3 July 2020.

Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption. Given SJ AB’s request to provide additional information and with the agreement of the Commission, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended by 19 working days.

The final deadline therefore expires on 31 July 2020.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(20)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(10)

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - west virginia(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(118)
              - 2023(50)
              - 2022(65)
              - (-)2021(33)
              - 2020(4)
              - 2019(13)

partnerWhite Earth Nation

partnerGeoscience Australia – National Earth Observation (GA-NEO)

staff profileKristi Simmons

staff profileKelly J. Swinford

social mediaUSGS Landsat

staff profileSylvia N Wilson

staff profileDavid Powars

staff profileWilliam Thomas Pecora

staff profileLara Douglas

staff profileCharles Edward Heywood

staff profileWarren  J Nokleberg

Science Theme        December 17, 2021      Geology

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Climate Change Impacts

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Framework geologic mapping

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Technology

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Paleoclimate

staff profileJohn Repetski

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Infrastructure

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Framework Geology

Science Theme        December 13, 2021      Evapotranspiration and Carbon Flux

Science Theme        December 8, 2021      Ocean Resources

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Space Climatology

Science Theme        December 17, 2021      Ocean Resources

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Ecosystem Dynamics

Science Theme        November 5, 2021      Research

Science Theme        November 19, 2021      Natural Resource Economics

Science Theme        November 19, 2021      Laboratory Spectroscopy

Science Theme        December 2, 2021      Opportunities by NSF Division

Science Theme        November 19, 2021      Spectroscopy Applications

Science Theme        November 19, 2021      Tutorials

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
Larry D. HARLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3041

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
Lazaro QUINTERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-789

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 5, 2018

Lazaro Quintero, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Lazaro Quintero appeals an order that denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion that alleged his sentence was illegal. The trial court's order denied Quintero's motion, and directed Quintero to show cause why he should not be precluded from further pro se filings in lower court case number F08-32265. We affirm the denial of Quintero's rule 3.800 motion. We dismiss, as premature, Quintero's appeal regarding that portion of the order requiring him to show cause, without prejudice to Quintero separately appealing any final order entered below precluding him from further pro se filings in the trial court in this case. *See**432*State v. Spencer*, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla. 1999) ("[P]roviding notice and an opportunity to respond through the issuance of an order to show cause ... serves to generate a more complete record. If the litigant is thereafter denied further pro se access to the courts, the appellate courts will have an enhanced ability to determine whether the denial of access is an appropriate sanction under the circumstances.").

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
# C_2021517EN.01012001.xml

| 22.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 517/120 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 517/120

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2020/2222 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the cross-border infrastructure linking the Union and the United Kingdom through the Channel Fixed Link

(COM(2021) 402 final — 2021/0228(COD))

(2021/C 517/19)

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 15.7.2021
  European Parliament, 13.9.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 91(1) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 22.9.2021 |
| Plenary session No | 563 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 239/1/5 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 15.7.2021

European Parliament, 13.9.2021

Legal basis

Articles 91(1) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

22.9.2021

Plenary session No

563

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

239/1/5

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 563rd plenary session of 22 and 23 September 2021 (meeting of 22 September), by 239 votes to 1 with 5 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 22 September 2021.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6888

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LAMONT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-98-137) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lamont Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Lamont Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson , No. CR-98-137 (M.D.N.C. Mar.30, 2001). We grant Johnson’s motion to file supplemental material. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50670

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL CALZADA-VILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-2605-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raul CalzadaVilla raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_data(1)
              - (-)products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(4)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(5)
              - colorado(1)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(2)
              - hawaii(9)
              - (-)kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - south carolina(2)
              - vermont(1)
              - washington(2)

## By Year

map        January 1, 1975        Land use and land cover, 1972, Kentucky River area development district (KRADD)
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Early Warnings and Alerts

Filters

              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(25)
              - multimedia_audio(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_video(28)
              - multimedia_video-149194(25)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(4)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Interviews        July 6, 2010        Science for a Dangerous Planet
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00354-CV

DR. OLUWOLE PETERS AKA WALLY PETERS AND PRECIOUS LAMB, 

INC., D/B/A PRECIOUS CARE CONSULTANTS, Appellants

V.

COMPLETE PHARMACY RESOURCES, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-11356

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed March 18, 2013. No clerk’s record 

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

informed the court appellants did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On May 29, 2013, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 
2

appellants 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).

Appellants have not provided this court with proof of payment for the 

record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.
SCWC-29953

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. STEVEN SCHAEFER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. (CR. NO. 5P104-00072 (LC04-072))

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. APRIL ESTHER SCHAEFER, aka APRIL ESTHER PAIVA,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. (CR. NO. 05P104-00169 (LC04-169))

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NOS. 29953 and 29954)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Steven Schaefer’s and April Esther Schaefer’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 19, 2011 is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 19,2011. Hayden Aluli for petitioner/ defendant-appellant Steven Schaefer on the application Mimi Dejardins for petitioner/defendant-appellant April Schaefer on the application Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho for respondent/plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai # i on the response /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29953 19-OCT-2011 08:20 AM
Nicole BREWINGTON, DOC #978438, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **ABERDENE MINES LIMITED**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Brent Jardine, 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:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated this 15th day of February, 2006.

 
/s/ Brent Jardine 
Brent Jardine 
Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.4



 





Exhibit 10.4




DESCRIPTION OF EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN FOR FISCAL 2008




     On May 15, 2007, the Board of Directors of Black Box Corporation adopted an executive
incentive bonus plan for Fiscal 2008 (fiscal year ending March 31, 2008). The plan goals include
reported operating earnings per share and accounts receivables levels as measured by days sales
outstanding (“DSOs”). Payout of the bonus pool, which will be created based on reported operating
earnings per share, will be based upon DSOs at fiscal year end with, on the low end, 75% of the
pool payable upon achievement of approximately 90% of the DSOs target and, on the high end, 100%
payout of the pool upon achievement of 100% of the DSOs target. In addition, payments may be made
at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The following executive officers of the Company will
participate in this plan: Messrs. Terry Blakemore, Michael McAndrew and Francis Wertheimber. Non-executive personnel will
also participate in this plan. The bonus pool, if paid out, will be shared equally by each
individual in the plan.
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1794

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * Leroy Louis Scott, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 6, 2001 Filed: November 14, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After a jury trial, Leroy Louis Scott, Jr., was convicted of escaping from federal custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994). The District Court 1 sentenced him to sixteen months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Scott has filed a pro se supplemental brief.-2- We have carefully considered each of the issues raised on appeal—regarding Scott’s speedy-trial rights under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act, his Fifth Amendment right to be free from excessive pre-indictment delay, the alleged variance between the indictment and the jury instructions, the District Court’s receipt of hearsay evidence, and his duplicity challenge to the indictment—and we find each argument to be without merit. Additionally, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have not found any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2020136EN.01000701.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9447 – Hitachi/ABB (Power Grid Division))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 136/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Hitachi Ltd (‘Hitachi’, Japan), |
| --- | --- |

—

Hitachi Ltd (‘Hitachi’, Japan),

| — | ABB Management Holding AG (‘ABB (Power Grid Division’), Switzerland), controlled by ABB Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

—

ABB Management Holding AG (‘ABB (Power Grid Division’), Switzerland), controlled by ABB Ltd.

Hitachi acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of ABB (Power Grid Division).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Hitachi: Hitachi is active in a variety of business segments including IT Solution, Energy Solution (including the development, engineering, manufacturing and sale of products, systems and projects relating to: (a) high voltage products; (b) transformers; (c) power grid automation; and (d) power grid integration), Industry Solution, Mobility Solution and SmartLife Solution, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Hitachi: Hitachi is active in a variety of business segments including IT Solution, Energy Solution (including the development, engineering, manufacturing and sale of products, systems and projects relating to: (a) high voltage products; (b) transformers; (c) power grid automation; and (d) power grid integration), Industry Solution, Mobility Solution and SmartLife Solution,

| — | for ABB (Power Grid Division): ABB (Power Grid Division) is active in the development, engineering, manufacturing and sale of products, systems and projects relating to: (a) high voltage products; (b) transformers; (c) power grid automation; and (d) power grid integration. |
| --- | --- |

—

for ABB (Power Grid Division): ABB (Power Grid Division) is active in the development, engineering, manufacturing and sale of products, systems and projects relating to: (a) high voltage products; (b) transformers; (c) power grid automation; and (d) power grid integration.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9447 – Hitachi/ABB (Power Grid Division)

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---