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

Exhibit 99.1


Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants
on Supplemental Information



To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Precision Auto Care, Inc.


In connection with our audit of the consolidated financial statements of
Precision Auto Care, Inc. referred to in our report dated September 21, 2001
which is included in this Form 10-K, we have also audited Schedule II as of June
30, 2001 and for the year then ended. In our opinion, this schedule presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information required to be set forth
therein.



                                                              Grant Thornton LLP
Vienna, VA
September 21, 2001


                                       53
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 31 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit 

persons who are not citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents 

of the United States from voting in elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2025 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. HAMADEH of Arizona, Mr. 

TIMMONS, and Ms. BOEBERT) submitted the following joint resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to prohibit persons who are not citizens, nationals, 

or lawful permanent residents of the United States from 

voting in elections. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 31 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. A person who is not a person lawfully 

5 accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the 

6 United States, a person owing permanent allegiance to the 

7 United States, or a citizen of the United States may not 

8 vote in any election for Federal, State, Tribal, or local of9 fice, including offices in the District of Columbia or in any 

10 of the territories or possessions of the United States. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en12 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2017231EN.01002502.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/25

---

Order of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa)

(Case T-785/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Ufesa - Amicable settlement - Acquisition by the applicant of the mark applied for - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 231/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA (Huarte-Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Duarte Guimarães and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: DKSH International Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Johansson and J. Stock, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 (Case R 1691/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between BSH Electrodomesticos España and DKSH International.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate in the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate in the action.

| 2. | BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

| 3. | DKSH International Ltd. shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

DKSH International Ltd. shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

1

---
|   | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: August 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Robert DeCecco III                                |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Robert DeCecco III                                    |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |

----
Case 3:04-cv-00041-R Document 7 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
Michael Henry BRONISZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jacqueline BRONISZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald STEWART

NO. 2019-KH-0309

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
Case 3:04-cv-00299-N Document 3 Filed 04/16/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 19
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00299-N Document 3 Filed 04/16/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 20
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00299-N Document 3 Filed 04/16/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 21
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 164 

AN ACT 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize Federal agencies to 

provide certain essential assistance for hazard mitigation 

for electric utilities, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 164 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Opportuni3 ties to Widen Electrical Resilience Act of 2025’’ or the 

4 ‘‘POWER Act of 2025’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 403 of the Robert T. 

7 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 5170b) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(e) ELECTRIC UTILITIES.— 

11 ‘‘(1) HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIVITIES.—An 

12 electric utility may carry out cost-effective hazard 

13 mitigation activities jointly or otherwise in combina14 tion with activities for the restoration of power car15 ried out with assistance provided under this section. 

16 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL ASSIST17 ANCE.— In any case in which an electric utility fa18 cility receives assistance under this section for the 

19 emergency restoration of power, the receipt of such 

20 assistance shall not render such facility ineligible for 

21 any hazard mitigation assistance under section 406 

22 for which such facility is otherwise eligible.’’. 
3 

•HR 164 EH

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub2 section (a) shall only apply to amounts appropriated on 

3 or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 15, 

2025. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 164 

AN ACT 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and for other purposes. ance for hazard mitigation for electric utilities, eral agencies to provide certain essential assistand Emergency Assistance Act to authorize Fed-
Pedro L. ALARCON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Affirmed.
COASTAL VENTURE ALLIANCE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v. Jose L. RUBIO, Individually; Anthony Rubio, Individually, and DOES 1-5, Inclusive, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2051

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. James MILLS Jr.

NO. 2018-KO-1686

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied.
T.L.B.P. and S.L.P. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160274

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
---

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the Contract) Entered into by and between Xiangqian Li and Shenzhen Branch, China Citic Bank (the Creditor) Dated May 6, 2011

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: (2011) Shenyinsun Ebaozi 001;
- Main Contract number: (2011) Shenyinsun Zongzi 003
- Xiangqian Li undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen
BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Obligor)s indebtedness towards China Citic Bank, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 105 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the
creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyers fee,
notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditors right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Termination and explanation
- Payment on demand
- Declaration and guaranty of Xiangqian Li
- Rights and Obligations of Xiangqian Li
- Rights and Obligations of the Creditor
- Obligations succession
- Effectiveness and Disputation settlement
- Effectiveness, modification and termination of Contract
- Validity

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Respondent/Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:03-CR-0291-K (03)

) No. 3:04-CV-1756-K

THELMA EDITH FUENTES, ) ECF

ID # 30921-177, )

Movant/Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any

objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District

Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 9 day of July, 2007. th

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:03-cr-00291-K Document 149 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 440
Case 2:03-cv-00413-J Document 14 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 101
 

 Case 2:03-cv-00413-J Document 14 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 102
S.T. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160680

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00018-CR

Lewis Edward Campbell

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 30th District Court

of Wichita County (52,792-A)

December 10, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
Exhibit 32.2




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 Annual Report on Form 10-Q of TearLab Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G. Dumencu, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 to the best of my knowledge:




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 results of operations of the Company.




By:
/s/ William DumencuWilliam G. DumencuChief Financial Officer and  Treasurer




Dated:   May 12, 2011
STATE of Louisiana v. Walter A. KOTT, Jr.

No. 2018-KH-0511

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 937 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 937

     To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. 
                              Warnagiris.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 19 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. 
                              Warnagiris.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Warnagiris, Cr. No. 21-382, pending in 
        the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 
        Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Warnagiris, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Schwager, and any current or former officer or employee of the 
Secretary's office, in connection with the production of evidence 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40534 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANIEL JUAREZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Hipolito Sanchez-Juarez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1625-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Daniel Juarez-Sanchez (Juarez) appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Juarez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and thatNo. 05-40534 -2- a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Juarez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Because Juarez has shown no error in the judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
# C_2020371EN.01003002.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-8/20) (1)

(2020/C 371/35)

Language of the case: Czech

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---
Ahmad Rashad WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0467

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Nikko WEBBER

NO. 2019-KH-0253

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

*1123Denied. Premature.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 24 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating 

to ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2025 

Mrs. BICE (for herself, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. RULLI, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. PERRY, and 

Mr. PALMER) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Energy relating to ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for WalkIn Coolers and Walk-In Freezers’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Energy relating to ‘‘Energy Conservation 

5 Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In 

6 Coolers and Walk-In Freezers’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 104616 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 24 IH 

1 (December 23, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force 

2 or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Rodney Alston JACOBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4205

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2016343EN.01004301.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/43

---

Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)

(Case T-407/16)

(2016/C 343/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pledgeling LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the letter ‘p’ — Application for registration No 12 123 147

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1693/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 73 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 73 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---