alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S.Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed SecuritiesPlatform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2019, except for servicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v),1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on ourexamination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selectedtransactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide areasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year endedMarch 31, 2019, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 22, 2019 
**
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ALPHABET INC., DBA Blogger, DBA

Google Adsense , DBA Google, Inc., DBA

YouTube, LLC; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 17328

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 05986

- JST

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019 **

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ , Circuit Judges.

Harry J. Williby appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with the ope ration of his

YouTube channels. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Williby’s request for oral

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 

# FILED

AUG 27 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 17328

an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

. Ferdik v. Bonzelet

,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) . We affirm.

The district court did not ab use its discretion by dismissing Williby’s action

because Williby failed to cure the deficiencies in his complaint, as ordered. See id.

at 1260

- 6 3 ( setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be

dismissed under Rule 41(b) and requ iring a definite and firm conviction that the

trial court committed a clear error of judgment in order to overturn such a

dismissal)

.

Williby’s contention that Judge Tigar should have recused himself is

unpersuasive.

Williby’s motion for judicial notice, or in the alternative, to supplement the

record on appeal , is denied as unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.
----

----

| (1) | The      Registrant’s Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the      “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or      78o(d)); and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Registrant. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | *      Michael V. Shustek and Rocio Revollo function, respectively, as the      equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of      the Registrant for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section  1350. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 10.11
 American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.
Non-employee Director Compensation Summary
 Annual Cash Retainer
 We pay our non-employee directors an annual cash retainer for serving on the Board and Committees as follows:Annual Board Retainer
    
    $
    40,000Lead Director Retainer
    
    $
    30,000Audit Committee member
    
    $
    10,000Audit Committee chair
    
    $
    20,000Compensation Committee member
    
    $
    5,000Compensation Committee chair
    
    $
    10,000Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee member
    
    $
    3,000Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee chair
    
    $
    7,500Technology/Business Development member
    
    $
    4,000Technology/Business Development chair
    
    $
    6,000
 Equity Awards: Stock Options and Restricted Stock Awards
  Stock Options
 Restricted Stock Awards
 Expenses
Noel N. NINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2626

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 2, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 10, 2018

Noel N. Nino, Bristol, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND ARTHUR GENTILE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

U.S. FEDERAL MARSHAL, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-17018 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00943-EPG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Raymond Arthur Gentile appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order 

dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate 

indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-17018 

whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district 

court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and 

remand.

Gentile consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Gentile’s action 

before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before 

the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-

04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further 

proceedings. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

FILE No. 83542 

OCT 28 2(21 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

OF 

r

UPREME COURT 

Blr:4 

No. 83608 DEPUIY CLEIC 

MICHAEL RONALD BROOKS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

MICHAEL RONALD BROOKS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are pro se appeals from judgments of conviction. This 

coures review of these appeals reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, 

the district court entered the judgments of conviction on July 16, 2021. 

Appellant did not file the notices of appeal, however, until September 21, 

2021, well after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period prescribed by 

NRAP 4(b). Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction 

in this court, Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994), 

this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeals, and 

ORDERS these appeals DISMISSED.' 

• 

Cadish 

, J 

(3de/4 , J. J. 

Pickering Herndon 

'Based on this dismissal, the court takes no action in regard to the 

pro se letter filed in Docket No. 83608. 

-3101~ 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

10) I947A 
cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge 

Michael Ronald Brooks 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(o) l947A 407> 2
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Entropic Communications, Inc.:



|                                                |  |                               
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|NAME:                                           |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION:
|RF Magic, Inc.                                  |  | Delaware                      
|Entropic Communications LLC                     |  | Delaware                      
|RF Magic Ltd.                                   |  | United Kingdom                
|Entropic Communications Israel Ltd.             |  | Israel                        
|Entropic Communications (Hong Kong) Ltd.        |  | Hong Kong                     
|Entropic Communications (Shenzhen) Co., Limited |  | China                         
|Entropic Semiconductor (Korea), LLC             |  | South Korea                   
|Entropic Communications Bermuda LP              |  | Bermuda                       
|Entropic Communications Holding B.V.            |  | The Netherlands               
|Entropic Communications Holding Limited         |  | Hong Kong                     
|Entropic Communications Japan K.K.              |  | Japan
David RENCZKOWSKI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4022

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0525n.06 Filed: July 28, 2006 No. 05-1171 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONIA WORTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. WORLD WIDE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; REAL FINANCIAL, L.L.C.; HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC., f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEFORE: MARTIN, NORRIS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Anthonia Worthy appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit filed pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Michigan’s Secondary Mortgage Loan Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 493.51 et seq. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicablelaw, we are not persuade d that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claims. Because the reasoning that supports the dismissa l has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no usefulNo. 05-1171 Worthy v. World Wide Financial

- 2 - purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the distri ct court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Opinion and Order filed on December 13, 2004.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 103875-103876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-MWR-INDU-38253; PS.SMWLA0016.00.1]

Minor Boundary Revision at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore; 
Correction

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service published a document in the Federal 
Register of February 28, 2011, concerning a minor boundary revision at 
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, now known as Indiana Dunes National 
Park. The document contained an incorrect map date and reference 
number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Warner, Acting Chief, 
[email protected], National Park Service, Interior Regions 3, 4, 5, 
Land Resources Program Center, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska, 
68102, telephone (402) 661-1706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 103876]]

Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 28, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-4352, 
on page 10915, in the second column, in the SUMMARY section, the map 
date, ``October 2009'' and reference number, ``314/80,013'' are 
corrected to read: ``February 2010'' and ``626/101,023.''

Herbert Frost,
Regional Director, Interior Regions 3, 4, 5.
[FR Doc. 2024-30206 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
```
Jason Daniel JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2728

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 27, 2018

Jason Daniel Jackson, Sneads, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Michael MASLAK, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Series 2005-PR4 Trust, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 2, 2019

d0624 

# Order

Clerk July 2, 2019

158629(65)

In re LOUIS G. BASSO, JR., REVOCABLE

LIVING TRUST.

_________________________________________

MARY ANGELA BASSO,

Appellant,

v SC: 158629

COA: 337321

Oakland PC: 2015

- 363780

- TV

THOMAS BRENNAN FRASER, Successor

Trustee, and RONALD M. BARRON, Trustee,

Appellees.

__________________ _______________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 4,

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-105388) of NationsHealth, Inc., (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-119462) pertaining to the NationsHealth, Inc. 2004Stock Option Plan, (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126197) pertaining to the RGGPLS Holding Inc. StockBonus Plan & Trust, and (4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126561) pertaining to the NationsHealth, Inc. 2005Long-Term Incentive Plan;of our report dated March 27, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofNationsHealth, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for each of the three years in the periodended December 31, 2007, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2007.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  Certified Public AccountantsMiami, Florida
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 11, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1019 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-772, K2025-771.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30135 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. CHARLES WILLIAM BUNNELL II, AKA Charles Bunnell II,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 1598 D.C. No. 2:14

- cr - 00119

- DGC

- 1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell , District Judge , Presiding Submitted April 22, 20 2 4 **
Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Charl e s William Bunnell II appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36

- month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument , s ee Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) , and we therefore deny Bunnell’s request for oral argument. 

# FILED

MAY 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 1598

Bunnell contends the district court erred by considering the seriousness of his underlying offense , and by relying on inaccurate, prejudicial facts contained in a report

. We need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to the standard of review that applies to these claims because we conclude that the court did not err under any standard. The record shows that the district court did not consider any impermissible factors. Rather, its discussion of the underlying offense was part of its proper consideration of Bunnell’s overall criminal history and poor performance on supervised release. See United States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062

- 63 (9th Cir. 2007)

. Moreover, Bunnell’s speculation that the district court may have relied on erroneous facts in a report is insufficient to undermine the sentence. See United
States v. Vanderwerfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 937 (9th Cir. 2009) (defendant must show his sentence “was demonstrably based on false or unreliable information” ). Finally, we disagree with Bunnell’s assertion that th is case must be remanded for the district court to clarify the basis for the sentence. The record makes clear the court relied only on permissible se ntencing factors and reasonably determined that a 36

- month sentence was warranted to protect the public, provide deterrence, and sanction Bunnell’s breach of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Simtob , 485 F.3d at 1062

- 63.
AFFIRMED

.