alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

SARATOGA POTATO CHIP )

COMPANY, INC., a/k/a Olde York )

Potato Chips, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) Case No. 1:12-cv-452

)

CUETARA HOLDINGS, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

A telephonic scheduling conference was held today in this matter at which the following

counsel appeared: Attorney Eric Kirschner for Defendants Classic Foods, Inc., and Cuetara

Holdings, Inc.; Attorney Theodore Storer for Defendant Balance Foods, Inc.; and Attorney Adam

Hand for Plaintiffs Saratoga Potato Chip Company, Inc., and Saratoga Potato Chips, LLC.

(Docket # 84.) Oral argument was heard and concluded on the Motion for Leave to Withdraw

filed on October 6, 2014, by Attorney Kirschner, who seeks to withdraw as Classic’s counsel, but

remain as counsel for Cuetara. (Docket # 80.)

Attorney Kirschner asserts that he seeks to withdraw because Classic is “no longer in

existence.” But Attorney Hand reports that Classic remains a corporation in good standing in the

State of Delaware–an assertion which Attorney Kirschner does not refute. Accordingly, Attorney

Kirschner has not shown a persuasive basis for the motion to withdraw.

Moreover, the Court would still deny the motion because Saratoga served Classic with

discovery requests on June 26, 2014, well before Attorney Kirschner filed his motion to

withdraw. (Docket # 79.) These discovery obligations remain outstanding, providing additional
grounds to deny the motion. See, e.g., Denton v. Suter, 3:11-cv-2559-N, 2013 WL 5477155, at *4

(N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2013) (denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw filed in the midst of a

discovery dispute); Small v. Regalbuto, No. 1:06-cv-1721, 2009 WL 1911827, at *2 (N.D. Ohio

June 29, 2009) (denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw when defendant still had

outstanding discovery obligations).

For these reasons, the Motion for Leave to Withdraw filed by Attorney Kirschner, seeking

to withdraw as counsel to Classic (Docket # 80), is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Entered this 9th day of October, 2014.

s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge
Opollo Rey JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9255.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00341-CV

CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS CARLOS H. CASCOS, SOPHIA BENAVIDES, JOHN 

WOOD, DAVID A. GARZA AND EDNA TAMAYO

v.

FRANK A. TOMPKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, AND CAROLYN 

TOMPKINS YOUNG

On appeal from the

138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2009-10-5624-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant and against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 24, 2013.
Exhibit 32.1  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 Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and 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 results of operations of the Company.  /s/ E. James Collord By __________________________________ E.  James Collord President, Director and Chief Executive Officer Date:  August 18, 2006
Eric Emanuel TAYLOR, petitioner, v. Barack H. OBAMA, President of the United States, et al.

No. 12-9328.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Darryl Anthony MOODY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9374.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Alvin Leroy MORTON, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-8395.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11542]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 672

[Docket No. 95020641-5041-01; I.D. 050495B]


Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pacific Cod in the Western 
Regulatory Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention of Pacific cod by vessels 
catching Pacific cod in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 
Alaska (GOA) for processing by the offshore component. NMFS is 
requiring that catches of Pacific cod by these vessels in the Western 
Regulatory Area be treated in the same manner as prohibited species and 
discarded at sea with a minimum of injury. This action is necessary 
because the allocation of Pacific cod specified for the offshore 
component in this area has been reached.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 5, 1995, until 
12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is 
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 
672.
    In accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(1)(ii), the allocation of Pacific 
cod total allowable catch (TAC) for the offshore component in the 
Western Regulatory Area, GOA, was established by the final 1995 
groundfish specifications (60 FR 8470, February 14, 1995), as 2,010 
metric tons (mt).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance 
with Sec. 672.20(c)(3), that the allocation of Pacific cod TAC 
specified for the offshore component in the Western Regulatory Area, 
GOA, has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that further 
catches of Pacific cod by operators of vessels catching Pacific cod for 
processing by the offshore component in the Western Regulatory Area in 
the GOA, be treated as prohibited species in accordance with 
Sec. 672.20(e)(4).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-11542 Filed 5-5-95; 3:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11298]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[CGD08-95-007]


Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee, 
Gaming Vessel Subcommittee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory 
Committee's Gaming Vessel Subcommittee will meet to discuss navigation 
safety matters affecting the Lower Mississippi River area. The meeting 
will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to approximately 11 a.m. 
on Wednesday, June 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in room 1830 of the World Trade 
Center, 2 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Dave Seris, USCG, Recording 
Secretary, Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee, 
c/o Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (oan), Room 1211, Hale Boggs 
Federal Building, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396, 
telephone (504) 589-2353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec. 1 et seq. The 
meeting is open to the public. Members of the public may present 
written or oral statements at the meeting. The agenda for the meeting 
consists of the following items:
    (1) Introduction of new members.
    (2) Discussion on the present and future operation of Gaming 
Vessels on the Lower Mississippi River.
    (3) Presentation of any additional new items for consideration of 
the Committee.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-11298 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON

MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER

DATED MARCH 16, 2017

The Court has reviewed non-party Anthony Levandowski’s motion to modify the

expedited discovery order dated March 16 (Dkt. No. 147). Any opposition must be filed by

APRIL 5 AT 4:00 P.M. A hearing on the motion is hereby set for APRIL 6 AT 9:30 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 148 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 1
In re Joseph McGHEE, petitioner.

No. 12-6547.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2012.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JONATHAN FERGUSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:13CV417-JVB-JEM

)

CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND, )

INDIANA; PETE BUTTIGIEG, )

MAYOR; CHARLES HURLEY, )

Interim Chief of Police of the )

SOUTH BEND POLICE )

DEPARTMENT; PATROLMAN ERIC )

MENTZ; PFC MICHAEL STUK; )

AND OFFICER AARON KNEPPER, )

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff and Defendants, by counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this

action with prejudice pursuant to F.R.C.P 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own

costs and attorney fees.

/s/ Johnny W. Ulmer

Johnny W. Ulmer

Ulmer Law Offices, Inc.

P.O. Box 866

Bristol, IN 46507

Richard E. Bryant

1333 West Lusher Ave.

Elkhart, IN 46517

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Peter J. Agostino 

Peter J. Agostino (#10765-71)

Stephanie L. Nemeth (#25721-71)

Anderson Agostino & Keller, P.C.

131 South Taylor Street

South Bend, IN 46601

Attorneys for Defendants
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A K BA L SI N G H N I J J A R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71650 A ge nc yN o. A 073- 417- 086 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A kba l S i ngh N i

jj ar , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED JU L 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 71650 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , N

aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 5 9 7 F .3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g N ijjar ’s s e c o n dm o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y and nu m ber- barr ed w here the succ es si ve m ot i on w as fi l ed n e a r lys ix y e ar s a f

te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l d e c is io n , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , a nd N i jj a rf a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e c hange d c i r c um s t anc e s i n I ndi at o qua l i f yf orthe r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e an dn u m b e rlim ita tio n s , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; N

ajm abadi , 597 F . 3d a t988- 89. W e r e je c t N ijjar ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e B I A d idn o t a d e q u a te lye x a m in e h is e v id e n c e . See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 603 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng pet i t i on erhad n otov er com e the pres um pt i on thatthe B IA re vi ew ed the re cord); s e e al s o N ajm abadi , 5 9 7 F .3 da t 9 9 0 ( th e B I A “d o e s n o t h a v e to w r ite a n e x e g e s is o n e v e ryc o n te n tio n ” ) . F u rth e r , N ijjar ’s c o n te n tio n s th a t th e B I A f a ile dto ap p ly the pr ope rl e ga l s t anda r d ora ddr e s s hi s c l a i m f orr e l i e f unde rthe C onve nt i on A g a in s t T o rtu r e a r e b e lie db yth e r e c o r d . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit
31.1








Certification
Pursuant to Section 302


of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I,
Dana Hyde, Chief Executive Officer of Great Spirits, Inc., certify
that:





1.   I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB;





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





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





4.   The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-a5(e)) for the small business issuer and
have;





(a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure the material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation





(c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and





5.   The
small business issuer other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer's board of directors (or person performing the equivalent
functions);





(a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal controls over
financial reporting.





Date:  February
12, 2008


By:
            /s/ Dana
      HydeDana
      Hyde
              Chief
      Executive Officer
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID WALKER, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CORDIS CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.17-cv-00735-EMC 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

For the reasons stated in this Court’s September 23, 2016, Order in Dunson v. Cordis, 

C16-3076-EMC, Docket No. 53, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to state court for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 23, 2017 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00735-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:17-cr-00063-EJD Document 8 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 1
Rodney Michael CIELTO, petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 12-9240.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

REQUEST FOR

TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL

For a tutorial for the judge, counsel shall please make presentations to set forth the basic

technology in the public domain and prior art bearing on the trade secrets and patents at issue

on the motion for provisional relief. Please do not refer to the actual systems or subsystems

used by either party. (Those will be presumably covered in the motion papers.) For the tutorial,

please refer only to what is in the public domain or prior art, regardless of whether or not one

side or the other actually practices it. That is, in the tutorial, please do not say what the parties

actually practice but if the item is in the public domain, you may reference the public domain

part, even if one side or the other practices it. Make sure that all points in the tutorial reside in

books, treatises, articles, public interviews, public videos, blogs, websites, seminars,

presentations, Form 10-Ks, or other publicly verifiable sources. Please exchange approximate

scripts beforehand so that each side may vet the other. Each side will have forty minutes on

APRIL 12 AT 10:00 A.M. The public may attend the entire presentation. The judge is interested

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 64 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

in learning the basic technology and learning publicly known art. This would be a good

opportunity for a young lawyer to present in court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 64 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2
EX-34.2
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Column Financial Inc.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment that Column Financial Inc. ("The Company") complied with
the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(ii) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for publicly issued commercial mortgage
backed securities on or after January 1, 2007 ("The Platform") for which the
company acted as a Pool Asset Administrator, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company because the Company does not
perform activities with respect to the Platform relating to those criteria.
Appendix A to Management Assessment identifies the individual asset-backed
transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assessment about the Company's compliance 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 the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected servicing activities 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 selected transactions 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 affected the 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 our examination provides a reasonable 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 assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 14, 2008



KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.