alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 15**

**LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION**

 

**LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT**

 

Board of Directors and Shareholder 

Boeing Capital Corporation 

Renton, Washington 

 

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Boeing Capital Corporation and subsidiaries for the three-month periodsended March 31, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated April 26, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement Numbers. 333-55846 and 333-83208 of Boeing Capital Corporation on Form S-3. 

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared orcertified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Seattle, Washington 

April 26, 2005 

 

32
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
JEREMIAH MICHAEL BURGESS , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0105 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201800673 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr. , Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney ’ s Office , Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent
Jeremiah Michael Burgess , Eloy Petitioner FILED 1-17-2023STATE v. BURGESS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya , Judge Jennifer B. Campbell , and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Jeremiah Burgess seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Burgess’ first petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior cour t abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ari z. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the sup erior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find t he petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
NO. SCPW-11-0000012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

EDWARD A. SMITH, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (P. NO. 88-0030)

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Edward A. Smith's papers received on February 7, 2011 and filed on February 8, 2011, which are deemed a motion for reconsideration of the January 18, 2011 order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that the motion for reconsideration is untimely. See HRAP 40(a) ("A motion for reconsideration may be filed by a party only within 10 days after the filing of the opinion, dispositional order, or ruling unless by special leave additional time is granted during such period by a judge or justice of the appellate court involved."). Therefore, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0000012 10-FEB-2011 02:59 PMIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 10, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
William DOUGLAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10866.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
JOSEPH D. RADOVANIC

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/

RETAIL ADMINISTRATION & MARKETING
COST OF ACCOUNTS

© 2010 Webster Five Cents Savings Bank

2

125 137 139 151

289

311 319

337

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006 2007 2008 2009

Savings

Checking

Harland Financial Peer Group Study
PROFITABILITY COMPARISON

3 © 2010 Webster Five Cents Savings Bank

6%

94%

Profitable

Unprofitable

First Step

13%

87%

Profitable

Unprofitable

Passbook
INCREMENTAL COST PROFITABILITY

4 © 2010 Webster Five Cents Savings Bank

55%

45%

Profitable

Unprofitable

First Step

74%

26%

Profitable

Unprofitable

Passbook
PERCENTAGE OF PROFITABILITY 

PER HOUSEHOLD

Cents Savings Bank

34%

26%

24% 25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2006 2007 2008 2009

Harland Financial Peer Group Study
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS



## * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ROSA HERNANDEZ , * No. 15

- 356 V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

* Filed: July 12 , 2016

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Stipulation; Influenza vaccine;

* GBS.

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle A. Strait

, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA (DC)

, Washington, DC , for

Petitioner;

Douglas Ross , U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1



## On July 11, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition

for compensation filed by Rosa Hernandez on April 9, 2015

. In her petition,

petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine , which is contained in the Vaccine

Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C .F.R. §100.3(a), and which Rosa Hernandez

received on or about October 24 , 201 2 , caused her to develop Guillain -Barre

Syndrome (GBS), with residual effects lasting more than six months. Petitioner

represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for

damages on her b ehalf as a result of her condition.

1 

### T he E -Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing

redaction of medical informati on or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2 

## Respondent denies that any of the vaccines that petitioner received either

caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s GBS or any other injury or

condition

.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as

Appendix A. The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the

decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages award ed in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 13 5,000.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner, Rosa Hernandez . This amount represents compensation for

all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in cas e 15-3 56 V according to this decision

and the attached stipulation. 2



## Any questions may be directed to my law clerk

, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357

-

6 360

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 

### Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party fil ing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal

Claims judge.
Royce E. BROWN, Sr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9658.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LUZ ESTRADA, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-1765

LT Case No. 2020-10226-CIDL

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., 

 Appellee. 

_______________________________/ 

Decision filed July 19, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Volusia County, 

Randell H. Rowe, III, Judge.

Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan,

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Diane G. Dewolf and Katherine E.

Giddings, of Akerman LLP,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, HARRIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12482]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Intent To Grant a Limited Exclusive Patent License

    Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal 
Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, the Department of the 
Air Force announces its intention to grant Specialty Cable Corporation, 
a corporation of the State of Connecticut, a limited exclusive license 
under United States Patent No. 5,304,739 filed in the name of Reja B. 
Klug et al. for a ``High Energy Coaxial Cable For Use In Pulsed High 
Energy Systems''.
    The license described above will be granted unless an objection 
thereto, together with a request for an opportunity to be heard, if 
desired, is received in writing by the addressee set forth below within 
sixty (60) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Copies of 
the patent application(s) may be obtained, on request, from the same 
addressee.
    All communications concerning this Notice should be sent to: Mr. 
Samuel B. Smith, Jr., Chief, Intellectual Property Branch, Commercial 
Litigation Division, Air Force Legal Services Agency, AFLSA/JACNP, 1501 
Wilson Blvd. Suite 805, Arlington, VA 22209-2403, Telephone No. (703) 
696-9050.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12482 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                   |                                                                                                              |                               |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:              March 31, 2008 |                                                                                                                   | /s/              Lawrence S. Coben |
|                              | Name: Lawrence              S. Coben                                                                         |
|                              | Title:                Chief                Executive Officer                   (Principal Executive Officer) |

|                                   |                                                                                                                                                                |                              |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Date:              March 31, 2008 |                                                                                                                                                                     | /s/              Ronald D. Ormand |
|                              | Name: Ronald              D. Ormand                                                                                                                            |
|                              | Title:                President                and Chief Financial Officer                     (Principal Financial and Accounting                    Officer) |

----
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the annual report of CorMedix Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John C. Houghton, Principal 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, to 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.




March 11, 2011

/s/ John C. HoughtonName:
John C. HoughtonTitle:
President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-144V

UNPUBLISHED

CYNTHIA THOMAS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 3, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Damages Decision Based on Proffer; 

Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On January 29, 2019, Cynthia Thomas filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her November 1, 2017 influneza (“flu”) 

vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

On April 3, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to 

compensation for SIRVA. On April 1, 2020, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report

Recommending Compensation and Proffer of Compensation (“Proffer”) indicating 

Petitioner should be awarded $60,187.79. Of this total amount, $60,000.00 represents 

an award for past pain and suffering, and $187.79 represents an award for past 

unreimbursed expenses. Proffer at 4. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that 

Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.

 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access 

to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 
2

Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as 

stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum 

payment of $60,187.79 (representing $60,000.00 awarded for past pain and 

suffering, and $187.79 awarded for past unreimbursed expenses) in the form of a 

check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages 

that would be available under § 15(a). 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
Thomas DEAN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6912.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Stephen M. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the
registrant, hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



Dated: August 4, 2004



/s/ STEPHEN M. SMITHStephen M. Smith, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DEBRA E. NUNN, )

)

Plaintiff )

vs. ) Case No. 3:14-CV-1487 RLM

)

BIOMET, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants )

OPINION AND ORDER

After I granted Biomet’s motion for summary judgment, Debra Nunn filed

a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, contending that

I committed a manifest error of law because I disregarded or failed to consider

Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., 53 N.E.3d 1160 (Ind.

2016), which holds that Indiana’s statute of repose doesn’t apply to cases “where

the plaintiffs have had protracted exposure to inherently dangerous foreign

substances.” For the following reasons, I am denying Ms. Nunn’s motion.

In granting summary judgment for Biomet, I held that the ten-year statute

of repose could be equitably tolled, but found that Ms. Nunn hadn’t presented any

evidence from which a reasonable juror could find or infer that any concealment

by Biomet of problems associated with the hip implant caused her to delay filing

suit [Doc. No. 195]. Any tolling argument premised on Myers fails for the same

reasons. Ms. Nunn hasn’t shown that she suffered from a latent disease, like

asbestos, or presented any other evidence that would support a tolling argument.
Ms. Nunn can’t rest upon the allegations in the pleadings or conclusory

statements of the law at the summary judgment stage, but must “point to

evidence that can be put in admissible form at trial, and that, if believed by the

fact-finder, could support judgment in h[er] favor.” Marr v. Bank of Am., N,A., 662

F.3d 963, 966 (7th Cir. 2011). She hasn’t done that.

Accordingly, the motion to alter or amend the judgment [Doc. No. 198] is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 7, 2019 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

2
James Allen GREGG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-843.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:14-cr-55

JAMES P. LEDONNE,

Defendant.

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S SECOND MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

COMES NOW William J. Cohen, counsel for the defendant, and respectfully requests

leave of Court to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, and in support thereof states the

following:

1. On November 11, 2014, counsel met with the defendant at the St. Joseph County

Jail. During that meeting, the defendant said things to counsel indicating that he

no longer wanted counsel to represent him.

2. In light of the present circumstances and what the defendant said to counsel,

counsel can no longer adequately and effectively represent the defendant.

3. The defendant needs the services of another lawyer to represent him.

WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests leave of Court to withdraw as counsel for

the defendant, that a hearing be set on counsel’s Motion, and for all further relief proper in the

premises.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 95 filed 11/11/14 page 1 of 2
 /s/ William J. Cohen 

William J. Cohen, #3291-20

Attorney for Defendant

401 West Bristol Street

Elkhart, IN 46514

Telephone: (574) 293-4511

Fax: (574) 522-6281

E-Mail: wcohen@williamjcohen.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 11th day of November, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notice of this filing to all counsel of

record. 

/s/ William J. Cohen 

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 95 filed 11/11/14 page 2 of 2
James Anthony CLARK, aka Jamie, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7185.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

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