alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
People's Credit Card Master Trust

             Independent Accountants' Report on Management's Report
                 on People's Bank's Compliance with Article IV,
               Section 4.2 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

                          Year ended December 31, 1997


                        Independent Accountants' Report

People's Bank
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

Bankers Trust Company
Attn: Mr. Louis Bodi
Four Albany Street, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10006

Gentlemen:

We have examined the assertion made by the management of People's Bank
("People's") in the accompanying management report entitled Management Report
on People's Bank Compliance with Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement that, as of December 31, 1997, People's was in compliance
with the provisions set forth in Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Amended and
Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated March 18, 1997 (as heretofore
amended, supplemented or otherwise modified), including the applicable
supplements dated February 1, 1994, October 1, 1994, March 1, 1995,
July 1, 1996, March 18, 1997 and September 1, 1997 (collectively, the "Pooling
and Servicing Agreement") between Bankers Trust Company, as trustee, and
People's as servicer.  Management is responsible for People's compliance with
those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about People's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about People's compliance with the
aforementioned provisions and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on People's compliance with those provisions.

In our opinion, management's assertion that People's was in compliance with
the aforementioned provisions of Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement as of December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all
material respects.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
March 13, 1998
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF BACKWEBS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, William Heye, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BackWeb Technologies Ltd.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/ William Heye
William Heye
Chief Executive Officer Date: March 29, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

ORDER

It is ORDERED that Michael Paul is hereby appointed as the Court’s technical advisor in 

the above-captioned case, with his fees and expenses to be assessed equally between Plaintiff and 

Defendants and timely paid as billed. Mr. Paul’s contact information is as follows:

Michael D. Paul 

Michael D. Paul, PLLC

26110 High Timber Pass St.

San Antonio, TX 78260-8041

Phone: (210) 473-8696

Email: mdeanpaul@gmail.com

The parties are ORDERED to send courtesy copies of claim construction briefs, exhibits, 

and technology tutorials in PDF form to mdeanpaul@gmail.com. If the document was filed with 

the Court, the copy must include the CM/ECF header. For claim construction materials that have 

already been filed, the filing party is ORDERED to provide copies to Mr. Paul within two business 

days. Otherwise, the filing party is ORDERED to provide copies to Mr. Paul no later than one 

business day after filing future claim construction material.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4848
United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BETHANY KALEY FARBER

V.

CITY OF GAINESVILLE

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23CV552 

JUDGE MAZZANT/JUDGE JOHNSON

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, 

this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On March 4, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #13) that 

Defendant City of Gainesville’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #8) be granted.

Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no timely objections 

being filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 

are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #8) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s punitive damages and Fourteenth

Amendment claims against Defendant be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that all 

remaining claims against Defendant be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint 

no later than fourteen (14) days after the entry of this Memorandum Adopting Report and

Case 4:23-cv-00552-ALM-KPJ Document 14 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 260
Recommendation. If Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, Plaintiff’s claims 

should be dismissed with prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Case 4:23-cv-00552-ALM-KPJ Document 14 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 261
Opinion issued March 21, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00814-CV

———————————

ALAN ALBERTO VEGA FUENTES, Appellant

V.

FATIMA VIOLETA ROJAS RODRIGUEZ

AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 507th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-22755

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Alan Alberto Vega Fuentes, has filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal. More than ten days have elapsed since the filing of the motion, and no party 

has objected to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). No opinion has issued in this 
2

appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. NATHANIEL DEVON BAILEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00196-RJC-CH-1)

Submitted: August 28, 2009 Decided: December 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ross H. Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Devon Bailey appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. Bailey’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in relying upon evidence seized on November 24, 2008, allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment, to conclude that Bailey committed new criminal conduct. Bailey was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a district court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Pregent , 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999), and review for clear error factual determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred. United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009). A district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009); Johnson v. United States , 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000). Bailey’s claim that evidence seized after the November 24 stop should have been excluded fails because the exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised release revocation

23 proceedings. See United States v. Armstrong , 187 F.3d 392, 393-95 (4th Cir. 1999). We therefore find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that Bailey committed new criminal

conduct. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Activity Date Hours Description Rate Billed Expense Vendor

Time 5/18/23 1.1

Research defendants, determine proper 

entity to sue, review Colorado SOS $650.00 $715.00

Time 5/18/23 2.9

Prepare Original Complaint, multiple 

conferences w/client re: facts of case as they 

relate to the Complaint $650.00 $1,885.00

Time 5/10/23 5.5

Review all clients' documents; multiple 

conferences with client about facts of case; 

prepare damages spreadsheets; research 

Colorado law $650.00 $3,575.00

Time 12/22/23 5.9

Pull together service documents, prepare 

motion for entry and declaration supported 

by every single attempt at service of process $650.00 $3,835.00

Time 2/3/24 0.2

Conference with client re: service issues and 

addresses $650.00 $130.00

Time 2/1/24 0.5

Review service documents, prepare revised 

request for clerk's entry of default $650.00 $325.00

Time 4/25/24 2.9

Review notes and paychecks and create 

damages summary for default judgment $650.00 $1,885.00

Time 5/30/24 2.9

Review and revised motion for default 

judgment, recalculate damages and prepare 

declarations $650.00 $1,885.00

$14,235.00

Costs 6/13/23 Filing Fee $402.00 $402.00 Filing Fees US District Courts

Costs 8/8/23 Service $180.60 $180.60

Service of 

Process Direct Results 

Costs 9/15/23

DQPS Investigations, Colorado, Service of 

Process $229.50 $229.50

Service of 

Process DQPS Inves.

Costs 11/20/23 Additional attempts at service of process $133.75 $133.75

Service of 

Process Direct Results 

Costs 1/30/24 Service on the Texas Secretary of State $185.00 $185.00

Service of 

Process Direct Results

$1,130.85

Attachment 1

Case 4:23-cv-00541-ALM-AGD Document 10-4 Filed 06/04/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 57
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2134

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron Scarlet LS–2G HC.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cibacron Scarlet LS–

2G HC.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.86 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid. 7,7′-[(2-

methyl-1,5-pentanediyl) bis[imino(6-

fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) imino]]

bis[4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy

sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium sodium

salt (CAS No. 152397–21–2) (provided for in subheading 3204.16.30) Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.
2

•HR 2134 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered,

3 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment

5 of this Act.

Æ
Craig J. NICHOL, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-8623.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
Exhibit 10.2


 





 




03/03/2019


 


Partner Communications Company Ltd.


8 Amal Street


Afeq Industrial Park


Rosh-Ha’ayin 48103


Israel







Dear Sirs:


On behalf of BDO Ziv Haft Consulting & Management Ltd, Amot BDO House Building 46- 48 Menachem Begin Av. Tel-Aviv (the “Consultant”), I hereby confirm that the Consultant has reviewed the information set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Form 20-F”), for Partner Communications Company Ltd., under Note 4(a)(3) "Assessing the recoverable amount of goodwill for impairment tests", Note 13(1) "Goodwill impairment tests", Item 5A.1f "Impairment test of Fixed-Line Goodwill as of December 31, 2016, 2017 and 2018", and Item 5A.1s-i(3). "Assessing the recoverable amount of goodwill for impairment tests" in the Form 20-F all with respect to testing for impairment of assets and the results thereof.







The Consultant hereby confirms the information referred to above and consents to being named in the Form 20-F as an “expert”.


 


BDO Consulting


Name: Moti Dattelkramer 


Title: Partner


Signature:          /s/
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBERS 13-08-482-CR, 13-08-484-CR,

13-08-485-CR, and 13-08-486-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN RE RAUL GUERRERO

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides 

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Raul Guerrero, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

causes on August 12, 2008. Relator requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus

ordering Laura Hinojosa, the District Clerk of Hidalgo County, to file and process his

pleadings. 

We conclude this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This

court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that

issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §
2

22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig.

proceeding); see also In re Hayes, NO. 13-05-454-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5706, *2

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, orig. proceeding).

When a district clerk refuses to accept a pleading presented for filing, the party

presenting the document can seek relief by filing an application for writ of mandamus in the

district court, or attempting to file the pleading directly with a district judge, explaining in a

verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. See In re Bernard,

993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)

(O’Connor, J., concurring).

Relator has neither alleged nor shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby

DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 14th day of August, 2008.
3
EXHIBIT 29 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 211
	
 




 !"

 
# $

%&'()%(*+

*+&,%

-

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 212
	
 




 !"

 
# $

%

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 213
	
 




 !"

 
# $

%&'(

)

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 214
	
 




 !"

 
# $%

&'()*+,-')

.

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 215
	
 




 !"

 
# $

%

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 216
	
 




 !"

 
# $%

&'())(*

+,-./,-0./123+32451.03,6.7/819.12,609200:19//-,/-39016903,698;,<1-636;=,>?@

AAA 6903,698;,<1-636;=,>31.B6;=.C

D

D

D

E

FGHHIJ

KLMNIJ

OPMQHIJLRPM

OPJPSTHULR

V

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 217
	
 




 !"

 
# $%

&'()*

+,-.

&*/0,*,.

&*/0,*,.,1234,.

&*/0,*,.&5,*6

&*/0,*,(7')8.

7,+*&0/,&0*/

8(+&*,

./(9

.9(+.(1.

4(+*&4*).

4&1,,1.

5()+8&*3(+

*1&3+3+:4,+*,1.

1,9(1*&4(+4,1+

*,&7).&9(1*&00(:3+

5(17,83&

;

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 218
	
 




 !"

 
# $$

%

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 1-30 Filed 05/22/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 219
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Paul E. Freiman, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Neurobiological Technologies, Inc.;



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



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



4. As the registrants only certifying
officer, I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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



(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and



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



5. As the registrants only certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on the most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



September 13, 2004



/s/    PAUL E. FREIMANPaul E. FreimanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officerand Principal Accounting Officer)
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas Headwater Research LLC Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Headwater Research LLC 07/31/2024 /s/ James N. Pickens James N. Pickens CA Bar No. 307474

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 jpickens@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 979-8268 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 116 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4965