alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                       [KPMG Peat Marwick LLP Letterhead]

                         Independent Accountants' Report

Board of Directors
Headlands Mortgage Company:

We have examined management's assertion about Headlands Mortgage Company's (the
Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA's) Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31,
1997 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company'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 the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards 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 the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company has complied in all
material respects with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


                                                   /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
San Francisco, California
February 13, 1998


                                       12
<PAGE>

                     [HEADLANDS MORTGAGE COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1997, Headlands Mortgage Company (the
"Company") has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period,
the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy both
in the amount of $5.5 million.

                               HEADLANDS MORTGAGE COMPANY


                               By: /s/ Dennis Tussey
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                   Dennis Tussey
                                   Senior Vice President,
                                   Loan Administration
----

(2004/C 65 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2825/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject:   Linguistic diversity

The Action Plan for 2004-2006 promoting language learning and linguistic diversity makes repeated reference to the learning of ‘regional’ and ‘minority’ languages as well as of the more widely spoken languages. It states that national and regional authorities are encouraged to give special attention to supporting language communities whose number of native speakers is in decline from generation to generation. After all, these languages also form part of the European cultural heritage.

Should the protection of these languages be left up to the goodwill of Member States?

Does the EU itself not have to take an active role in supporting teacher training activities and schools that take on this task?

What instruments are available to the EU to encourage Member States to take action if they are currently failing to support this part of our cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that regional and minority languages are part of Europe's cultural heritage.

However, in the field of culture, it intervenes within the scope of the powers granted to it under Article 151 of the EC Treaty, which states that ‘Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action...’. Under the subsidiarity principle, responsibility for protecting regional and minority languages is a matter for Member States.

Under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Community contributes to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and supporting and complementing their action. This includes ‘developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States’. Educational establishments teaching a regional or minority language can take part in the Socrates/Comenius programme in the same way as other educational establishments. The teaching of these languages can also form the subject of cooperation projects between teacher-training colleges funded under Socrates/Comenius, which also offers grants for teacher training. Only those activities involving learning a language as a foreign language are limited to the official languages plus Irish and Luxembourgish, under the decision establishing the Socrates programme.

The Commission Action Plan ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’ provides in point III. 1.1 for the organisation of a conference in 2005 to promote cooperation on questions relating to regional and minority languages in education systems.

----
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 220291, 220292, and 220294, styled The State of Texas v. Donald 1

Ray McIntosh, in County Court No. 7, Bexar County, the Honorable Monica Guerrero presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00600-CR

IN RE Donald Ray MCINTOSH

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 29, 2008 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 12, 2008, relator Donald Ray McIntosh filed a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se Motion for Speedy Trial, Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus Release for Delay of Prosecution and Illegal Restraint, and Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus Dismiss for Failure to Provide a Constitutional Speedy Trial or to dismiss with

prejudice the underlying criminal cases. We conclude trial counsel is also relator’s counsel for an

original proceeding on the issue presented. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See

Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid

representation means relator’s pro se petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s
04-08-00600-CR

-2-

review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition is denied. Relator’s motion for leave to file

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
The Honorable Jerome Farris, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the *

Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0501n.06

Filed: August 18, 2008

No. 07-1715

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JACK SUNSERI; CONSOLIDATED

PARTNERS, LIMITED,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PHYLLIS PROCTOR; CONRAD PROCTOR;

DAVID PROCTOR; CONRAD A.

PROCTOR FAMILY TRUST; PHYLLIS

PROCTOR FAMILY TRUST; ANDERSONPROCTOR TRUST; PHYLLIS D. PROCTOR

TRUST; ANDERSON-PROCTOR FAMILY

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; PROCTOR, LLC;

ANDERSON-PROCTOR, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges. *

COOK, Circuit Judge. In order to enforce a prior judgment against general partnership

Macro Cellular Partners (“Macro”), plaintiffs Jack Sunseri and Consolidated Partners, Ltd.

(collectively, “Sunseri”), seek to reach the individual assets of defendant partners (collectively, the

“Proctors”) unnamed in the original suit. The district court granted summary judgment for the
No. 07-1715

Sunseri, et al. v. Proctor, et al.

Proctors, concluding that Sunseri’s claims against the Proctors accrued with the claims against the

partnership and the relevant statutes of limitations now barred the action. Review of the briefs and

record counsels us to agree with the district court. Because a separate opinion would add little to the

district court’s analysis, we affirm the court’s judgment, adopting its reasoning.
In the Matter of C.H.M.

No. COA15-934.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 29, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15224

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-02980-CV-ODE-1

FERCO ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant, 

versus 

TAYLOR RECYCLING FACILITY, LLC, 

JAMES W. TAYLOR, JR., 

MARK PAISLEY, 

TAYLOR BIOMASS ENERGY, LLC, 

TAYLOR HOLDING GROUP, LTD., 

Defendants-CounterClaimants-CounterDefendants-Appellees, 

JAW ENTERPRISES, INC., 

JOHN A. WILLIAMS, 

Counter-DefendantsCounter-ClaimantsAppellants. 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 29, 2008)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants FERCO Enterprises, Inc. (“FERCO”), JAW Enterprises, Inc.

(“JAW”), and John A. Williams appeal the district court’s entry of summary

judgment in favor of Appellees Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC, James W. Taylor,

Jr., Taylor Biomass Energy, LLC, Taylor Holding Group, Ltd., (collectively,

“Taylor Appellees”), and Mark Paisley. Appellants sued Taylor Appellees and

Paisley for misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, and

breach of confidentiality agreements. The Taylor Appellees then raised claims

against FERCO, JAW, and Williams for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and

tortious interference with contract. JAW then asserted additional claims against

the Taylor Appellees and Paisley. All parties moved for summary judgment, and

the district court granted each motion. 

On appeal, FERCO, JAW, and Williams argue the following: (1) genuine

issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Taylor Appellees and
3

Paisley on the trade secrets claims; (2) the district court erred in rejecting

Appellants’ ratification argument; (3) genuine issues of material fact preclude

summary judgment for Paisley on the breach of duty of loyalty and confidentiality

agreement claims; (4) the district court erred in determining that Appellee James

Taylor is not personally liable for claims against Taylor Recycling Facility and

Taylor Biomass Energy; (5) the district court erred in entering summary judgment

for Taylor Appellees on the tortious interference claim; (6) the district court erred

in finding that the Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-760 et seq,

preempted the common law claims; and (7) the district court erred in entering

summary judgment for Paisley on the computer crime claims.

After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of

having heard oral argument, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
II 

Calendar No. 75 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 676 

[Report No. 110–35] 

To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American Development 

Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the Inter-American 

Foundation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2007 

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. LUGAR, and Mr. HAGEL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Reported by Mr. BIDEN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American 

Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director 

of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on 

the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation. 

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


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 676 RS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO APPOINT EXECUTIVE DIREC2 TOR OR ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

3 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT 

4 BANK TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 

5 INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION. 

6 The third sentence of section 401(g) of the Foreign 

7 Assistance Act of 1969 (22 U.S.C. 290f(g)) is amended 

8 to read as follows: ‘‘Three members of the Board shall 

9 be appointed from among the following: officers or employ10 ees of agencies of the United States concerned with inter11 American affairs, the United States Executive Director of 

12 the Inter-American Development Bank, or the Alternate 

13 Executive Director of the Inter-American Development 

14 Bank.’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS

ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Calendar No. 75 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 676 

[Report No. 110

–35] 

A BILL 

To provide that the Executive Director of the Intertors of the Inter-American Foundation. opment Bank may serve on the Board of Direc- Executive Director of the Inter-American Devel- American Development Bank or the Alternate 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

JENNIE WALSH VERSUS LANDMARK OF BATON ROUGE, LLC, 

### DR. 

### WILLIAM PATRICK GAHAN, 

### AND CORINNE K. ROULEAU NO. 

### 2022 CW 1262



### MAY 17, 

## 2023

In Re: Dr. William 

### Gahan, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,



### 19th Judicial District 

### Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 700506.

BEFORE: 

### MCCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s September 

### 26, 2022 judgment, which 

### denied the Motion for 

## Summary Judgment 

## filed by defendant, Dr. William Patrick 

### Gahan, 

### is reversed. After 

## conducting acle novo reglew, we 

### find that Dr. 

### Gahan has met his burden of 

### pointing out to the court the absence of factual support 

### for one or more elements essential to the plaintiffs' medical malpractice claims, as plaintiffs, 

### Jennie Walsh 

### ndividUally and on behalf of_her 

### deceased mother, Genevieve Brister, 

### have failed to produce expert medical 

## testimony in support of them claims. 

### S e La. R.S. 

### 9:2794; Samaha v. Rau, 

### 2007-1.726 ( La. 

### 2/26/08)
1- 977 

### So.2d 

### 880. We 

### further find this is not a case of obvious negligence that requires no expert 

### testimony to 

### demonstrate the physician' s 

### fault, and Dr. Gahan 

### has not 

### testified as to the standard of care and 

### his breach thereof. , See 

### e.g. Pfiffner v. Correa, 

### 94-0924 ( La. 

### 10/17/94), 643 

### So.2d 1228, 

### 1233-34. Therefore, we find that plaintiffs will 

### be unable to 

### satisfy their 

## evidentiary burden of proof at trial. 

## Accordingly, the Motion for ,

## Summary Judgment filed 

## by defendant, Dr. 

### William Patrick Gahan., 

### is granted, and the claims of plaintiffs, Jenn4ie Walsh 

## indiv;ldually and on 

### behalf of 

### her 

### deceased mother, 

### Genevieve Brister, against 

### defendant, Dr. 

### William Patrick Gahan, 

### are dismissedwith prejudice. PMC GH HG

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DPU 

### CLERKOF COURT FOR THE COURT
STATE v. David Martin Beasley YOUNG.

No. 80A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 12, 2014.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Young, David Martin Beasley.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney.

**Opinion**

The following Order was entered:Pursuant to N.CG.S. 7A-31(a) and Rule 15(e)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court on its own initiative hereby certifies for review prior to determination in the Court of Appeals *State v. David Martin Beasley Young,* COA13-646. The case shall be docketed in this Court as of the date of this order. Briefs of the respective parties that have been submitted to the Court of Appeals shall be considered by this Court.
# CE2004070EN.01008101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/81

---

(2004/C 70 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Ireland

Subject:

In the answer to my question E-1491/03 (1) regarding the number of letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions sent by the Commission to the Irish Government over its failure to respond to Commission queries on environmental complaints (i.e. non-respect of Article 10 of the EC Treaty) in the period since 1 May 1999, the Commission replied that two letters of formal notice were sent on 15 May 2003 against Ireland under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

1

In this answer, why did the Commission not refer to the letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions as referred to in IP/00/1219 and IP/00/741 which highlighted the Commission's concern about the lack of cooperation from the Irish Government with regard to the application of the Waste Framework Directive (Dir 75/442/EEC (2)) at Poolbeg in Dublin, Kilbarry and Tramore in Waterford, Lea and Ballymorris in Laois, and Drumnaboden, Muckish and Glenall in Donegal, and the application of the Wild Birds Directive (Dir 79/409/EEC (3)) in Dublin Bay?

2

3

Could the Commission provide a definitive list of all its queries to the Irish Government that have given rise to the letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions to Ireland for non-respect of Article 10 of the EC Treaty since 1 May 1999 similar to those referred to in the above two press releases and also set out the current situation with regard to each of these queries?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

(24 September 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

(1)  See page 47.

1

(2)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

2

(3)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

3

---
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-07-403-CR

 2-07-404-CR

JOSEPH ALBERT DURANT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Joseph Albert Durant entered an open plea of guilty to two

charges of burglary of a building and also pleaded guilty to the enhancements.

The trial court found Durant guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years’

confinement in each case to run concurrently.
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

2

Durant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion

meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional 2

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for

relief. Durant was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do

so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of

the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the

appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because

Durant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error

is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Durant’s plea,

error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error

occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615,

620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2000).
3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 4, 2008
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.02

Quintiles Transnational Corp. and
Subsidiaries

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 Quintiles
Transnational Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James L. Bierman, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | /s/ JAMES L. BIERMAN        
| |                             
| | James L. Bierman            
| | Executive Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer     

Date: February 24, 2003