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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(h)

Key Bank USA, National Association      Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
127 Public Square                        formally known as Bankers Trust Company
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1306               as Indenture Trustee
                                        280 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
                                        New York, New York 10017

Bank One, National Association          MBIA Insurance Corporation
  as Eligible Lender Trustee             as Surety Provider
One First National Plaza Suite 0126     113 King Street
Chicago, Illinois 60670                 Armonk, New York 10504

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                      FOR KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A

We have examined management's assertion, included in its representation letter
dated March 19, 2003 that Key Bank USA, National Association (KBUSA), a wholly
owned subsidiary of KeyCorp, complied with sections 4.04, 4.08(a), 4.08(b),
4.08(c), 5.05, 5.06, 5.07 and 5.08 of the KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000-A Sale
and Servicing Agreement and sections 1.(a)(xx), 1.(b)(iii), 2 and 3 of the
KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000-A Administration Agreement (collectively, the
"Agreements") as of December 31, 2002 and for the year then ended. Management is
responsible for KBUSA's compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about KBUSA's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about KBUSA's
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances, except that in accordance with
Section 5.05 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement, our examination assumed the
accuracy of reports prepared by KBUSA's student loan processor. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on KBUSA's compliance with the specified
requirements.

In our opinion, assuming the accuracy of reports prepared by KBUSA's student
loan processor, management's assertion that KBUSA complied with the
aforementioned requirements as of December 31, 2002 and for the year then ended
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of KBUSA, Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas, Bank One, National Association and MBIA Insurance
Corporation and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than for these specified parties.


                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
March 19, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUAR-D.

Complainant,

VS

OMILES SAMUEL JOHNSON,

Respondent.

Docket Nurnher 2023 -0 I 22

Enforcemenr Acrivity No. 1651616

CONSENT ORDER

Issued Bv: Honorable Georse J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judse

Issued: April 21. 2023

Appearances:

CWO BENJAMIN MORRIS

USCG Sector NOLA

For the Coast Guard

OMILES JOHNSON, pra se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPAOVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On March 23,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Omiles Samuel

Johnson (Respondent), alleging ofmisconduct in violation of46 U.S.C. $ 7703(1)(8) and

46 C.F.R. $ 5.27. The Coast Guard alleges that Respondent failed to remain at his urine

collection site for a Random drug test pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part 16, which is a refusal to

take a required drug test pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part 16, as described by 49 C.F.R. $

40.191(a)(2).

On March 23, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe

case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I find that it is

fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $

20.502.

1
ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement

Agreement is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

REVOKED. However, the revocation is stayed until June 23, 2024, to permit

Respondent to complete a rehabilitation program and prove cure in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent complete the terms of the

Settlement Agreement prior to the termination of the stay. If Respondent satisfies the

requirements, this order will reflect an outright suspension for the period ofdeposit to

permit Respondent to complete and prove cure in accordance with the stipulated order

contained in the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Consent Order shall constitute full, final,

and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. GEORGE J. JORDAN

TINITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Done and dated Aprll.2l,2023,

at Seattle. WA

l

z-a
#### Lodovico Isolabella, Respondent, v Tamir Sapir et al., Appellants.

[945 NYS2d 309]

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered November 14, 2011, which denied defendants’ motions for leave to file an untimely motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that they did not consent to being added as party defendants and plaintiff did not obtain leave of the court to add them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause for making a late motion for summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648 [2004]). They claim the affirmative defenses of improper joinder (CPLR 1003) and *428plaintiffs failure to obtain leave to add them as new party defendants (CPLR 3025), but they waived these defenses by substantially participating in the amended action for two years before (belatedly and untimely) serving an answer that included the defenses. In any event, in a stipulation executed by all parties appearing in the action, defendants, through their in-house counsel, “consented” to service of the amended complaint upon them. They have not shown that their in-house counsel lacked the authority to consent to the amended complaint and their joinder on their behalf. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FRD ACQUISITION CO., AS
CONTAINED IN FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,472
<PP&E>                                         151,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (34,346)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,130
<BONDS>                                        195,652
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,493
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  465,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,836)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,178)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,178)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Hubbard Robinson v. The State.

An indictment for assault with intent to kill with a certain gun which defendant attempted to shoot ought to state that the gun was loaded. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2137-2144.)

Appeal from Yan Zandt. The case was tried before Hon. John J. Good, one of the district judges.

*171The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

*F. M. Says, L. W. Clark,*and *8.*P. *Donley,*for appellant.

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

Caldwell, J.

—Indictment charges that the defendant made “an assault with a certain gun, the same being then and there, a deadly weapon, and him the said William did attempt, with the gun aforesaid, to shoot, with intent,” &c.

After exceptions to the sufficiency of the indictment were overruled, the district attorney entered a *nolle prosequi*as to the felony, and they proceeded to trial for the assault. The defendant was found guilty of simple assault, from which he appeals.

We are of opinion that the exceptions ought to have been sustained.

The indictment ought to aver that the gun was charged, or otherwise show that the defendant had a present ability to inflict an injury.

Reversed and dismissed.
#### Immanuel Malone, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Elaine Malone, Respondent, v Choong W. Kim, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Alex Boafo, M.D., Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 58]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley B. Green, J.), entered October 18, 2011, which denied the motion of defendant Alex Boafo, M.D., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The record shows that the infant plaintiffs mother, who was approximately 29 weeks pregnant, went to defendant hospital because she was having contractions. The mother was admitted to rule out pre-term labor and was started on magnesium sulfate, in an attempt to stop pre-term labor. She was also given the first of two doses of a steroid, to hasten fetal lung maturity, and underwent a sonogram.

Defendant Boafo, a perinatologist, performed and interpreted the sonogram. Dr. Boafo found that the umbilical cord and one of the infant’s arms was prolapsing into the lower segment of the uterus. Dr. Boafo reported these findings to the mother’s treating obstetrician and recommended immediate delivery. Three and a half hours later, the treating obstetrician performed a cesarean section.

In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish a deviation or departure from accepted practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries *(see Frye v Montefiore Med. Ctr.,*70 AD3d 15, 24 [2009]). To constitute proximate cause, the physician’s negligence must be a “substantial factor” in causing the injury *(Mortensen v Memorial Hosp.,*105 AD2d 151, 158 [1984]).

Here, dismissal of the complaint as against Dr. Boafo is warranted since he established his entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Dr. Boafo submitted evidence showing that his recommendation, that the infant plaintiff be delivered im*478mediately, did not proximately cause the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. Although the treating obstetrician testified that he heeded Dr. Boafo’s advice, he did not immediately follow the recommendation of delivery. Rather, the obstetrician decided to wait several hours, as he felt that there was no emergency situation present and he wanted to allow time for the steroids to improve the infant plaintiffs fetal lung maturity. The obstetrician later made an independent decision, as the mother’s treating physician, to perform the cesarean section, for which he took sole responsibility. The obstetrician testified that he decided to perform the cesarean section based upon, inter alia, his belief that the attempt to stop pre-term labor had failed, there were certain changes in the fetal heart rate pattern, and there was a possible amniotic fluid leak. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2282 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2282

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of 
   veterans in certain courses of education, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2015

Mr. Ryan of Ohio (for himself and Mr. Roe of Tennessee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
  Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of 
   veterans in certain courses of education, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Veterans Education Priority 
Enrollment Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY ENROLLMENT FOR VETERANS IN CERTAIN COURSES OF 
              EDUCATION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 3680A the following new section:
``Sec. 3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses
    ``(a) In General.--With respect to an educational assistance 
program provided for in chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 35 of this title or 
chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, if an educational institution 
administers a priority enrollment system that allows certain students 
to enroll in courses earlier than other students, the Secretary or a 
State approving agency may not approve a program of education offered 
by such institution unless such institution allows a covered individual 
to enroll in courses at the earliest possible time pursuant to such 
priority enrollment system.
    ``(b) Covered Individual Defined.--In this section, the term 
`covered individual' means an individual using educational assistance 
under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 35 of this title or chapter 1606 or 
1607 of title 10, including--
            ``(1) a veteran;
            ``(2) a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty 
        or a member of a reserve component (including the National 
        Guard);
            ``(3) a dependent to whom such assistance has been 
        transferred pursuant to section 3319 of this title; and
            ``(4) any other individual using such assistance.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
3680A the following new item:

``3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021133EN.01000901.xml

| 16.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/9

---

Winding-Up Proceedings

Winding-up proceedings in respect of Insurance company ‘EUROAMERICAN’ JSC

Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)

(2021/C 133/07)

| Insurance undertaking | Insurance company ‘EUROAMERICAN’ |
| --- | --- |
| Address : 17 Tsar Asen street, |
| Triaditsa district, |
| Sofia 1000, Bulgaria |

Insurance undertaking

Insurance company ‘EUROAMERICAN’

Address : 17 Tsar Asen street,

Triaditsa district,

Sofia 1000, Bulgaria

Date, entry into force and nature of decision

Decision on opening of winding-up proceedings

Date : 17 February 2021

Competent authorities

| Supreme Administrative Court |
| --- |
| Address : 18 Aleksander Stamboliiksi bul, |
| Sofia 1301, Bulgaria |

Supreme Administrative Court

Address : 18 Aleksander Stamboliiksi bul,

Sofia 1301, Bulgaria

Supervisory authority

| Financial Supervision Commission |
| --- |
| Address : 16, Budapeshta str., |
| Sofia 1000, Bulgaria |

Financial Supervision Commission

Address : 16, Budapeshta str.,

Sofia 1000, Bulgaria

Liquidator appointed

| Guarantee Fund |
| --- |
| Address : 2 Graf Ignatiev Str. 4th floor, |
| Sofia 1000, Bulgaria |

Guarantee Fund

Address : 2 Graf Ignatiev Str. 4th floor,

Sofia 1000, Bulgaria

Applicable law

Bulgarian Law

Code on Insurance, Commercial law

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James A. Kittles, Appellant.

Around 1:00 p.m. on January 8, 1982, a man armed with a gun entered an ice cream store, robbed the two women working in the store, and raped one of them at gunpoint. Both women identified the defendant as their assailant in separate lineups on January 13, 1982, and again at trial. The defendant’s cousin testified that the defendant was home with her on January 8 watching soap operas from 12:40 to 2:00 p.m. Although she testified that she told this to the defendant’s *uncle and mother on*January 14, after reading about his arrest in the newspaper, she did not give this information to any law enforcement officials until about a week before the trial.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the alibi witness concerning her failure to come forward earlier was improper because it implied that she had a duty to report this information to law enforcement personnel. As no objection was raised to these questions at trial, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. In any event, the failure of an alibi witness to come forward earlier is relevant to credibility and such questioning is permissible provided the proper foundation is laid, as it was here *(see, People v Dawson,*50 NY2d 311).

We find the defendant’s remaining contentions to be either unpreserved or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

                            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  Phone1Globalwide,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2004, amended by Amendment No. 1,
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Dario Echeverry and Syed Naqvi, Chief Executive
Officer  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  respectively,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as Adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Dario Echeverry
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Dario Echeverry
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                                     /s/ Syed Naqvi
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Syed Naqvi
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023149EN.01006101.xml

| 28.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/61

---

P9_TA(2022)0358

Adapting a number of legal acts in the area of justice to Article 290 TFEU (Commission delegated acts) ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 October 2022 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 as regards the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in order to adapt it to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (09279/1/2022 — C9-0282/2022 — 2016/0399(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

(2023/C 149/09)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council position at first reading (09279/1/2022 — C9-0282/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council position at first reading (09279/1/2022 — C9-0282/2022),

| — | having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0798), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0798),

| — | having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0237/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0237/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Council position at first reading; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 30.4.2021, p. 832.

---