alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.5
       [Letterhead of KPMG LLP]
    Independent Accountants' Report
We have examined the accompanying assertion made by management on The Student Loan Corporation's compliance with the Administration Agreement, Sections2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, dated as of March 27, 2002,between the SLC Student Loan Trust-I, as Issuer, and The Student Loan Corporation, as Administrator, for the year ended December 31, 2003.  Management is responsible for The Student Loan Corporation'scompliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about The Student Loan Corporation's compliance based on our examination. 
Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute ofCertified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about The StudentLoan Corporation's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures aswe considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on The Student Loan Corporation's compliance with specified requirements.
In our opinion, management’s assertion that The Student Loan Corporation complied with theaforementioned requirements for the year ended December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.
The report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors and managementof The Student Loan Corporation and the SLC Student Loan Trust-I and Indenture Trustee and is not intended to be and should not beused by anyone other than these specified parties.
/s/ KPMG LLP
New York, New YorkMarch 3, 2004
**Management Report on The Student Loan Corporation's Compliance, as Administrator, withthe Requirements of the Administration Agreement**
Management of The Student Loan Corporation, as Administrator, is responsible for compliance with theAdministration Agreement, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 dated as of March 27, 2002, between the SLC Student Loan Trust-I, as Issuer, andThe Student Loan Corporation, as Administrator, for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Management has performed an evaluation of The Student Loan Corporation's compliancewith the Administration Agreement, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, for the year ended December 31, 2003.  Based uponthis evaluation, management believes that, for the year ended December 31, 2003, The Student Loan Corporation, as Administrator, wasin compliance with the Administration Agreement, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
/s/ Michael J. Reardon                                                                             March 3, 2004   Michael J. Reardon                                                                                         DateActing Chief Financial OfficerThe Student Loan Corporation, as Administrator
#### In re WESTERFIELD et al. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 10, 1899.)

In the matter of the application of Mary J. Westerfield and Flora E. Rogers for an intermediate accounting.

No opinion. Motion for reargument, or to modify the previous decision of this court, denied, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12266]



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



NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of 
Visitors; Meeting

    I accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of 
Visitors.
    Date and time: June 7-9, 1995.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
330, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Scott Collins, Division of Environmental 
Biology, Room 640, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1479.
    Purpose of Meeting:  To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decision on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials.
    Agenda: To provide oversight review of the Ecological Studies 
Cluster in the Division of Environmental Biology.
    Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed to the public because 
the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include 
privileged intellectual property and personal information that could 
harm individuals if they are disclosed. These matters are exempt 
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12266 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1728 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating portions of Ste. Genevieve County in the State of Missouri as a unit of 

the National Park System, 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, 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

HR 1728 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ste. Genevieve County 

3 National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) AREA.—The term ‘‘Area’’ means Ste. Gene7 vieve County, Missouri, which includes the Bequette8 Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk 

9 homes, and the related and supporting historical as10 sets located in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. 

11 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

12 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di13 rector of the National Park Service. 

14 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

15 (a) In General.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

16 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

17 the Secretary shall, in consultation with the State of Mis18 souri— 

19 (1) complete a study on the suitability and fea20 sibility of designating the Area as a unit of the Na21 tional Park System, which shall include the potential 

22 impact that designation of the area as a unit of the 

23 National Park System is likely to have on land with24 in the proposed area or bordering the proposed area 

25 that is privately owned at the time that the study is 

26 conducted; and 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

HR 1728 RFS 

1 (2) submit to the Committee on Resources of 

2 the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

3 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a re4 port describing the findings of the study. 

5 (b) Contents.—The study under subsection (a) shall 

6 be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91–383 (16 

7 U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.). 

Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

KYLE ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.R. ENGLAND, INC.,

PREMIERE TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL,

JOHN DOES 1-5, JOHN DOES 6-10,

and JOHN DOES 11-15

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO.: 2:15-cv-00083-JVB-PRC

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Kyle Anderson and Defendants C.R. England, Inc. and Premier Truck Driving

School (incorrectly named as Premiere Truck Driving School), by their respective counsel, and

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), hereby jointly stipulate to the voluntary

dismissal of this action with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

TUESLEY HALL KONOPA LLP

By: /s/ Michael J. Hayes

212 E. LaSalle Ave., Suite 100

South Bend, IN 46617

mhayes@thklaw.com

Michael J. Hayes

Attorneys for Plaintiff

NESENOFF & MILTERNBERG, LLP

By: /s/ Megan S. Goddard

363 Seventh Avenue, 5th Floor

New York NY 10001

mgoddard@nmllplaw.com

Megan S. Goddard

Attorneys for Plaintiff

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00083-JVB-PRC document 25 filed 12/08/15 page 1 of 2
FROST BROWN TODD LLC

By: /s/ Heather L. Wilson

FROST BROWN TODD LLC

201 N. Illinois St., Suite 1900

P.O. Box 44961

Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961

hwilson@fbtlaw.com

Heather L. Wilson, #20432-41

Attorneys for Defendants C.R. England, Inc.

and Premier Truck Driving School

LR12462.0625820 4828-5403-0122v1

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00083-JVB-PRC document 25 filed 12/08/15 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DAVID PANNELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-333 WL

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

David Pannell, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging ISP-14-04-0274,

a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Indiana State Prison. (DE 1.) On May 6, 2014, the

Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Unauthorized Possession, Destruction,

Alteration, Damage, or Theft of Property Belonging to Another, in violation of B-215. As a result,

he was sanctioned with the loss of 30 days earned credit time, but the deprivation was suspended

and has not yet been imposed. (DE 1 at 1, 14.) As such, he has not yet lost any earned credit time

as a result of this hearing. 

A prison disciplinary action can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it

results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th

Cir. 2003). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of the

duration of his confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief that he

can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied. If in the future the

suspended sanction is imposed, then he may file another habeas corpus petition challenging this

hearing. 
For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to SECTION 2254HABEAS CORPUS RULE

4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice.(DE 1).

ENTERED: August 11, 2015

 s/William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,080-01

EX PARTE ANTHWAUN JORDAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 19095-B IN THE 104TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TAYLOR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault and

sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded

this application for a response from trial counsel and findings of fact and conclusions of law from

the trial court. On remand, trial counsel responded in a sworn affidavit, and based on that affidavit,

the trial court found, among other things, that trial counsel did not remember whether Applicant

asked him to file an appeal. The trial court recommended that we deny relief. We agree. Given the
2

trial court’s finding, Applicant has not shown that trial counsel was deficient. 

We remind trial counsel and the trial court that it is trial counsel’s duty to ensure notice of

appeal is filed with the trial court. In his affidavit, trial counsel stated that his file, the record, and

his employment contract with Applicant indicated that Applicant was aware of his right to appeal

and that Applicant “needed to take action on his own to perfect that appeal.” This is not consistent

with this Court’s case law. As we explained in Jones v. State, “If the defendant decides to appeal,

[trial counsel] must ensure that written notice of appeal is filed with the trial court.” Jones v. State,

98 S.W.3d 700, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Relief is denied. 

Filed: February 27, 2019

Do not publish
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-10900

Summary Calendar

PAMELA Y. VALENTINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CHARLES A. BOWSHER, Comptroller General of the United States,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-982-D)

February 12, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In April 1986, Pamela Valentine ("Valentine") filed suit

against Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United

States, contending that her employer, the United States General

Accounting Office ("GAO") retaliated against her in violation of

her rights under Title VII, when it declined on two occasions to
2

place her on a best qualified list, which is a prerequisite for

eligibility for a promotion to a position to which the list

applies. In April 1998, the GAO filed a motion for summary

judgment, contending that Valentine had failed to establish that

she is complaining of an ultimate employment decision and that she

cannot present a genuine issue of material fact as to the causative

relationship between the protected activity and an adverse

employment decision. The district court granted GAO’s motion for

summary judgment and Valentine now appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion

and order entered June 12, 1998, we affirm the final judgment of

dismissal entered of even date therewith.

AFFIRMED.
EL PASO PIPELINE PARTNERS
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(IN MILLIONS)
 FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,2008
    
    2007
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2004(In millions, except ratio)EarningsNet income
    
    $
    114.5
    
    
    $
    65.6
    
    
    $
    65.2
    
    
    $
    37.6
    
    
    $
    41.1Adjusted for:Income from equity investees
    
    
    (58.8
    )
    
    
    (4.7
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Net income
before income from equity investees
    
    
    55.7
    
    
    
    60.9
    
    
    
    65.2
    
    
    
    37.6
    
    
    
    41.1Fixed charges
    
    
    23.7
    
    
    
    11.5
    
    
    
    7.1
    
    
    
    4.4
    
    
    
    3.3Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    29.8
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Capitalized interest
    
    
    (0.4
    )
    
    
    (1.8
    )
    
    
    (1.0
    )
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    Total earnings available for fixed
charges
    
    $
    108.8
    
    
    $
    70.6
    
    
    $
    71.3
    
    
    $
    41.8
    
    
    $
    44.4Fixed chargesInterest and debt costs
    
    $
    23.6
    
    
    $
    11.4
    
    
    $
    6.5
    
    
    $
    3.8
    
    
    $
    2.7Interest component of rent
    
    
    0.1
    
    
    
    0.1
    
    
    
    0.6
    
    
    
    0.6
    
    
    
    0.6Total fixed charges
    
    $
    23.7
    
    
    $
    11.5
    
    
    $
    7.1
    
    
    $
    4.4
    
    
    $
    3.3Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.6
    
    
    
    6.1
    
    
    
    10.0
    
    
    
    9.5
    
    
    
    13.5
EXHIBIT 32.2 PHARMOS CORPORATION
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION In connection
with the quarterly report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, S. COLIN NEILL, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated. This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Date: August
 7, 2008By: /s/ S.
 Colin Neill A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained
by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. 29
David GARCIA-ROQUE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10455.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Walter Prentice DRAKE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9639.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
AFH Holding III, Inc. 10-K





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 Annual Report of AFH Holding III, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amir F. Heshmatpour, 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 and belief:





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 Registrant.





Dated: March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Amir F. HeshmatpourAmir F. Heshmatpour

President, Secretary and Sole Director

(Principal Executive Officer)

(Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)
#### TOCHER, Respondent, v. MASON-SEAMAN TRANSP. CO., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate. Division, Second Department.

July 25, 1913.)

Action by Margaret Tocher, as administratrix, etc., of John Sutherland, deceased, against the Mason-Seaman Transportation Company and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, unless within 20 days plaintiff stipulate to reduce the recovery of damages to the sum of $4,500, with interest from April 6, 1912, in which event the judgment, as modified, and order, are unanimously affirmed, without costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-45-TLS 

)

ORLANDO PASCHALL )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 69], filed on October 30, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 69] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on November 20, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:12-CR-125 JD

)

LEOBARDO CAMPOS (01) )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on May 20, 2013 [DE 55]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Leobardo Campos’ plea of guilty, and FINDS

the defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 17, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00533 -CV

In re Mar garet

A. Erlewin e

OR IG IN A L PR OC E E D IN G FR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y

M E M O R

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

Relator Marg are t A

. Erlewine has filed a petition f or a writ of m an d amus

challen g in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’ s Ju n e 7
, 2 0 0 6 p r o te c ti v e o r d e r

. We d e n y th e p e ti ti o n f o r w r it of

mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice

Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop

Filed: Oc tober 19, 2006
Charles M. DANIELS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8555.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Leeward Group Holdings Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Leeward Group Holdings Inc. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: April 14, 2011 |   |                                                                                        |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |                                                                                        |
|                  |   |                                                                                        |
|                  |   | /s/ Kevin M. Coughlin                                                                       |   |   |
|                  |   | Kevin M. Coughlin                                                                           |
|                  |   | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director                    |
|                  |   | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
|                  |   | Leeward Group Holdings Inc.                                                                 |