alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Page 12 of 25


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(d)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association              Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126              fka, Bankers Trust Company
Chicago, IL  60670                          280 Park Avenue 9th Floor
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration        New York, NY 10017
Phone: (312) 407-0192                       Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Fax:   (312) 407-1708                       Structured Finance
                                            Phone: (212) 454-4298
                                            Fax:   (212) 454-2331

MBIA Insurance Corporation                  Key Bank USA, National Association
113 King Street                             800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
Armonk, NY 10504                            Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ATTN: Data Administration                   ATTN: Key Education Resources
Phone; (914) 765-3772                       KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000A
Fax:   (914) 765-3810                       Phone: (216) 828-9342
                                            Fax:   (216) 828-9301


Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among Key Bank USA,
National Association, as Seller, Master Servicer and Administrator, KeyCorp
Student Loan Trust 2000-A, and Bank One, National Association as Eligible Lender
Trustee, dated as of June 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned hereby
certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Administrator from January
1, 2002 through December 31, 2002, and of its performance under the Agreement
has been made, and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based on our review, the
Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement and the
related Administration Agreement respectively throughout such period.

                                            Key Bank USA, National Association,
                                            as Administrator


                                            by:
                                                   /S/ DARLENE H. DIMITRIJEVS
                                            -----------------------------------
Date: March 14, 2003                        Name: Darlene H. Dimitrijevs, CPA
                                            Title:   Senior Vice President


                                            by:
                                                   /S/ DEBRA S. FRONIUS
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Name: Debra S. Fronius
                                            Title: Vice President
DENY and Opinion Filed September 20, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00787-CV 

IN RE GAIL CORDER FISCHER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17340 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

In this original proceeding, relator Gail Fischer seeks mandamus relief from 

the trial court’s order (1) granting real party in interest’s motion to strike her 

exceptions to the auditor’s report and (2) denying her motion for leave to file the 

exceptions. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion and that she lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). 

 After reviewing the amended petition and the record before us, we conclude 

that relator has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX.R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Having denied the petition, we also deny relator’s stay motion as moot. 

220787F.P05 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,547
<SECURITIES>                                    15,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                       986
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,226
<PP&E>                                           4,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,180
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,966)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,298
<SALES>                                          6,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,523
<CGS>                                            2,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,262)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
> 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 Biotech Holdings Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Lorne D. Brown, Chief Financial Officer
> and Interim 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 to the best of my knowledge:
> The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
> 
> The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
> 
> Dated:   September _22__, 2008
> 
> /s/ Lorne D. Brown
> ______________________________________
> Lorne D. Brown, C.F.O. and Interim C.E.O.
#### Hugger, Respondent, *v.*New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

July 1, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1









                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-50760 and 333-50758) and Forms S-8 (Nos.
333-44262, 333-56014 and 333-56016) of Juno Online Services Inc., of our report
dated January 17, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 16, 2001
NO. 12-20-00049-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL,

APPELLANT

V.

KIMBERLY PLENTL,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

David Allen Russell, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge an order of 

dismissal signed on January 14, 2020. On February 18, the Clerk of this Court notified Russell

that his notice of appeal failed to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West 

Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing 

reporter’s record); Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, 

at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (pro se litigants are held to same 

standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise,

pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel). The 

notice warned that, unless Russell filed a proper notice of appeal on or before March 19, the appeal 

would be referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline expired without a compliant notice of 

appeal or other response to this Court’s February 18 notice.
2

Because, after notice and an opportunity to cure, Russell failed to comply with Rule 9.5 

and Section 51.017, the appeal is dismissed.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative 

after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject 

to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or 

a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered March 25, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

 1 We also note that the case information sheet from the Anderson County District Clerk indicates that Russell 

was declared indigent in the trial court. Russell filed an affidavit of indigency with this Court, but did not file a 

statement of previous filings, and a current, certified copy of his inmate trust account statement as requested by the 

Clerk of this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 25, 2020

NO. 12-20-00049-CV

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL,

Appellant

V.

KIMBERLY PLENTL,

Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV19-1102-87)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-13875) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity
Incentive Plan, 1996 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan and Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Hot Topic, Inc. of our report dated March 7, 1997, with
respect to the financial statements of Hot Topic, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 1, 1997.


                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Los Angeles, California
April 23, 1997
Exhibit 23

Independent Auditors' Consent

To
the Stockholders of Coldwater Creek Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-82260, 333-60099, and 333-31699) on Forms S-8 of
Coldwater Creek Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 5, 2004, except for the adjustments to include disclosure of the customer list rental income and customer list rental
expense for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in Note 2 and to include disclosure of the components of interest, net, and other for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in
Note 2, as to which the date is March 30, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Coldwater Creek Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2004 and
February 1, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 and the eleven-month transition
period ended February 1, 2003 and our report dated March 5, 2004 on the related financial statement schedule in connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, which reports appear in the January 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Coldwater Creek Inc.

Our
report on the consolidated financial statements refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to the common stock outstanding, retained earnings, and net income per share
amounts, as well as certain amounts in the 1996 stock option plan and employee stock purchase plan disclosures, to revise the fiscal 2001 consolidated financial statements to reflect a
3-for-2 stock split declared by the Board of Directors on December 19, 2002 and August 4, 2003. Our report also refers to our audit of the adjustments that were
applied to the fiscal 2001 consolidated financial statements to revise the segment reporting disclosures in Note 1 and Note 19 to reflect a change in the composition of the company's
segments. In addition, our report refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to include disclosure of the Company's customer list rental income and customer list rental expense for the
fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, and the adjustments that were applied to include disclosure of the components of interest, net, and
other for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002 in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.
However, we were not engageed to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the fiscal 2001 consolidated financial statements other than with respect to such adjustments.

/s/
KPMG LLP
Boise, Idaho
April 11, 2004

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2520 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2520

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of excise 
                       tax on distilled spirits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

   Mr. Young of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Yarmuth) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of excise 
                       tax on distilled spirits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Distillery Innovation and Excise Tax 
Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCED RATE OF EXCISE TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5001(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``$13.50'' and inserting ``$9 ($2.70 in the 
case of the first 100,000 proof gallons)''.
    (b) Reduced Rate Applied With Respect to Controlled Group.--Section 
5001 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating 
subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) 
the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Reduced Rate Applied With Respect to Controlled Group.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of a controlled group, the 
        reduced rate on the first 100,000 proof gallons specified in 
        subsection (a)(1) shall be applied to the controlled group and 
        shall be apportioned among the taxpayers who are component 
        members of such group in such manner as the Secretary may 
        provide. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
        `controlled group' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection 
        (a) of section 1563, except that for such purposes the phrase 
        `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for the phrase `at 
        least 80 percent' each place it appears in such subsection. 
        Principles similar to the principles of the preceding two 
        sentences shall be applied to a group of taxpayers under common 
        control where one or more members of such group is not a 
        corporation.
            ``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
        regulations as may be necessary to prevent the reduced rate 
        specified in subsection (a)(1) from being applied to proof 
        gallons in excess of the limitation specified therein.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distilled spirits produced or imported in calendar years 
beginning after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2442

___________ Hazel Clark, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of * Veterans Affairs, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 26, 2002 Filed: January 3, 2003

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Hazel Clark appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her consolidated employment-discrimination actions. Upon de novo review, see Griffin v. Super Valu , 218 F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





I,
      Phillip Michael Hardy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A (Third Amendment) for the quarterly
      period ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of eLinear, Inc.





Date:
      April 10, 2006











By:
      _/s/  Phillip Michael Hardy___________


Phillip
      Michael Hardy


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,726,720
<SECURITIES>                                       666,406
<RECEIVABLES>                                       30,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,968,784
<PP&E>                                             176,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,040,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              107,742
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            16,559
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,916,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,040,451
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,071
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   356,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (350,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (350,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (350,174)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)



</TABLE>
#### George Montalvo v. The State.

Where the evidence shows that at most the defendant has been guilty of a violent assault, and yet the jury found that he was guilty of an assault with intent to murder, the court should have granted a new trial.

If there he any fact in the evidence wh'ich is brought before us for revision from which a jury may reasonably draw the inference of the guilty intent " charged, this court is never disposed to disturb the verdict of a jury. But if a case be wholly barren of every such fact, it is our duty to set aside all such findings.

Appeal from Cameron. The case was tried before Hon. Edward Dougherty, one of the district judges.

The case turned upon the facts. The proof was that the accused came home drunk and ordered the injured woman to make some coffee. She replied that she had no water; thereupon the accused flew at her with a knife. In trying to disarm him, she got her hand cut; and, she falling down, the accused cut off some of her hair. There seemed to be no effort to kill. Certainly there was opportunity. The defendant was found guilty of assault with intent to murder, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. ' He appealed.

*Israel B. Bigelow,*for appellant.

Ho brief for the State has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Lindsay, J.

— The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for an assault with intent to kill. The statement of facts is exceedingly meagre; and if all the facts proved upon the trial are embraced in the statement, it is difficult to perceive from what circumstances stated the jury could *64come to the conclusion that the assault was made with intent to Mil. If there be any fact in the evidence which is brought before us for revision from which a jury may reasonably draw the inference of the guilty intent charged, this court is never disposed to disturb the verdict of a jury. But if a case be wholly barren of every such fact, it is our duty to set aside all such findings. There is not a single circumstance developed by the testimony in this case to show that it was the intent of the accused to Mil in the assault which he made. The evidence might have warranted a verdict of “ not guilty” of the assault with intent to Mil, but “guilty” of an aggravated assault. Beyond this, upon the evidence, the jury had no right to go. The judgment is reversed, and a new trial awarded.

Reversed and remanded.