alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

 

 

To Household Finance Corporation:

We have performed procedures enumerated below in items A. and B. in conjunction with Section 4.11 of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated November 1, 1998 (the "Agreement").

 

- We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the consolidated financial statements of Household Finance Corporation (the "Servicer") and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and have issued our report thereon dated January 14, 2002.  We have not audited any financial statements of the Servicer as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2001, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report on those statements.  As part of our audit, we reviewed documents and records relating to the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables under the Agreement.  In connection with our audit, we noted no exceptions or errors in the records relating to the servicing of consumer automobile finance loans that, in our opinion, generally accepted auditing standards required us to report.
- We have performed the procedure described in the following paragraph, which was agreed to by the management of the Servicer, with respect to Section 4.11 of the Agreement, in conjunction with the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automobile Revolving Trust I.  This agreed-upon procedure was performed in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  The sufficiency of the procedure is solely the responsibility of the Servicer.  Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedure described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.

The procedure and associated findings are as follows:

From the Monthly Servicers Certificates prepared by the Servicer between January, 2001 and December, 2001, we selected the following month and performed the following:

We have compared the mathematical calculation of each amount set forth in the Monthly Servicers Certificates to the Servicers accounting records for the month of February 2001, for Series 1998-1 and found it to be in the agreement.  Our comparisons were based on records provided to us by the Servicer and the methodology set forth in the Agreement.

With respect to the procedure performed in item B. above, we were not engaged to, and did not, perform an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the Monthly Servicers Certificates described above.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Had we been engaged to perform additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Servicer and should not be used for any other purpose.

Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois

March 22, 2002
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rodney HATCHETT a/k/a Rodney Hayes, Appellant.

No. WD 61237.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 5, 2003.

*570Andrew A. Schroeder, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Hatchett appeals the judgment of his conviction, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, for one count of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020; and one count of armed criminal action (ACA), § 571.015. As a result of his convictions, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms in the Missouri Department of Corrections of fifteen years for robbery and five years for ACA.

In his sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court plainly erred in failing to *sua sponte*grant him a new trial because the prosecutor was guilty of pros-ecutorial misconduct in intentionally misrepresenting the appellant’s prior felony convictions to the jury.

Affirmed. Rule 80.25(b).
Vincent J. MASTANDUNO, Employee v. NATIONAL FREIGHT INDUSTRIES, Employer, and American Zurich Insurance Company, Carrier

No. 20P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

John M. Kirby, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Mastanduno, Vincent J.

Bruce A. Hamilton, Attorney at Law, S. Scott Farwell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for National Freight Industries, et al.

***ORDER***

*637Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 2nd of November 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of November 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
#### Darrian WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-2952.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 27, 2003.

Darrian Williams, Mayo, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The summary denial of Appellant’s motion for post-sentencing jail credit is affirmed, without prejudice to his pursuing his administrative remedies against the Department of Corrections, and, if he is dissatisfied after exhausting his administrative remedies, then seeking mandamus relief against the department in the circuit court for the county in which he is incarcerated. *See Reese v. State,*707 So.2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); *Washington v. State,*662 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

GUNTHER, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
----

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 27 April 2006

on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004, Section II — Council

(2006/811/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

The President

Josep BORRELL FONTELLES

The Secretary-General

Julian PRIESTLEY

----

(1)OJ L 53, 23.2.2004.

(2)OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 1.

(3)OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 9.

(4)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(5)OJ L 356, 31.12.1977, p. 1.

----

RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

with comments forming an integral part of the decision on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004, Section II — Council

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

----

(1)OJ L 53, 23.2.2004.

(2)OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 1.

(3)OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 9.

(4)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(5)OJ L 356, 31.12.1977, p. 1.

(6)Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0410.

----
CONSENT OF GORDON MCCRAE AND METALLURGICAL DESIGN & MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD.





To:

British Columbia Securities Commission
Alberta Securities Commission
Manitoba Securities Commission
Ontario Securities Commission
Autorité des marchés financiers 
Toronto Stock Exchange

American Stock Exchange

US Securities and Exchange Commission





I, ­­­­­­­­­­­Gordon McCrae, as the qualified person for the following noted report and on behalf of Metallurgical Design & Management (Pty) Ltd. do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Tabakoto Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 24 day of March, 2005



signed

______________________Gordon McCrae



signing officer,

Metallurgical Design & Management (Pty) Ltd.



[Seal or Stamp]
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Public Meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 
Reform

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises all interested persons of a public meeting 
of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2005, and will 
begin at 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Renaissance Washington, DC 
Hotel, 999 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Panel staff at (202) 927-2TAX 
(927-2829) (not a toll-free call) or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7910171f16390d18010b1c1f160b140918171c15571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2bbbcb4bd92a6b3aaa0b7b4bda0bfa2b3bcb7befcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a> 
(please do not send comments to this box). Additional information is 
available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose: The October 11 meeting is the 
eleventh meeting of the Advisory Panel. Due to exceptional 
circumstances concerning scheduling, this Notice is being published at 
this time. At this meeting, the Panel will continue to discuss issues 
associated with reform of the tax code.
    Comments: Interested parties are invited to attend the meeting; 
however, no public comments will be heard at the meeting. Any written 
comments with respect to this meeting may be mailed to The President's 
Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform,1440 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 
2100, Washington, DC 20220. All written comments will be made available 
to the public.
    Records: Records are being kept of Advisory Panel proceedings and 
will be available at the Internal Revenue Service's FOIA Reading Room 
at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1621, Washington, DC 20024. The 
Reading Room is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday except holidays. The public entrance to the reading room 
is on Pennsylvania Avenue between 10th and 12th streets. The phone 
number is (202) 622-5164 (not a toll-free number). Advisory Panel 
documents, including meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes, will 
also be available on http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

    Dated: September 29, 2005.
Mark S. Kaizen,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19847 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4773 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4773

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands 
     within Fort Pulaski National Monument, 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 ``Fort Pulaski National Monument Lease 
Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this 
section as the ``Secretary'') may lease to the Savannah Bar Pilots 
Association, or a successor organization, no more than 30,000 square 
feet of land and improvements within Fort Pulaski National Monument 
(referred to in this section as the ``Monument'') at the location on 
Cockspur Island that has been used continuously by the Savannah Bar 
Pilots Association since 1940.
    (b) Rental Fee and Proceeds.--
            (1) Rental fee.--For the lease authorized by this Act, the 
        Secretary shall require a rental fee based on fair market value 
        adjusted, as the Secretary deems appropriate, for amounts to be 
        expended by the lessee for property preservation, maintenance, 
        or repair and related expenses.
            (2) Proceeds.--Disposition of the proceeds from the rental 
        fee required pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in 
        accordance with section 3(k)(5) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 
        1a-2(k)(5)).
    (c) Terms and Conditions.--A lease entered into under this 
section--
            (1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 years and, at 
        the Secretary's discretion, for successive terms of no more 
        than 10 years at a time; and
            (2) shall include any terms and conditions the Secretary 
        determines to be necessary to protect the resources of the 
        Monument and the public interest.
    (d) Exemption From Applicable Law.--Except as provided in section 
2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease authorized by this Act shall not be 
subject to section 3(k) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(k)) or 
section 321 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 1302).

            Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4773

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands 
     within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes.
```
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.03

                               RED ROOF INNS, INC.

                           ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

                             DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned director of Red Roof Inns,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby: (1) constitutes and
appoints David N. Chichester and/or Alan L. Tallis, collectively and
individually, as his agent and attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution
and re-substitution, to (a) sign and file Form 10-K for Red Roof Inns, Inc. on
his behalf and in his name, place, and stead in any and all capacities with
respect to the registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d), (b) sign and file any and all amendments, including
post-effective amendments, and exhibits to Form 10-K, (c) sign and file any and
all applications or other documents to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission covered by the Form 10-K, and (d) do and perform any and all other
acts and deeds whatsoever that may be necessary or required in the premises; and
(2) ratifies and approves any and all actions that may be taken pursuant hereto
by any of the above-named agents and attorneys-in-fact or their substitutes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned director of the Company has hereunto set his
hand as of the 16th day of March, 1998.



                                    /s/ WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR.
                                    -------------------------------
                                    William M. Lewis, Jr.



                                       56
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Teon BROWN

No. 95P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Ms. Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law, for Brown, Michael Teon

Mr. James R. Glover, Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law

Ms. Sonya M. Calloway-Durham, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of March 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT L. WILLIAMSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1974

[ January 28, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 311994CF000853A

.

Robert L. Williamson, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., M AY and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CHAVEZ v. WADLINGTON

366A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 4, 2018

Rebecca K. Watts, Attorney at Law, Monroe, for Chavez, Emily Susanna.

Joseph Wadlington, for Wadlington, Joseph Fitzgerald.

Serena Wadlington, for Wadlington, Serena Sebring.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 4th of December 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of December 2018."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 10th day of December 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 02-PDB-081.

No. 2002-OB-3107.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Rodriguez, Mario et al.; Rodriguez, Mario Mrs.;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 02-PDB-081.

Leave to appeal denied.
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  September 27, 2010 | By:  /s/ James G. Borem                                   |
|                                | James G. Borem                                                           |
|                                | President and Chief Executive Officerand Interim Chief Financial Officer |
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1888

___________ Tralon Corp.; Soil Remediation Service, * Inc.; Bernard Glieberman, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern v. * District of Iowa. * Cedarapids, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 2000 Filed: January 21, 2000

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Raising a scattershot array of challenges to the factual findings and legal conclusions of the district court, Tralon Corp., Soil Remediation Service, Inc., and BernardGlieberman (collectively Appellants) appeal the adverse decisions of the district court that dispose of their contract-based claims for breach of warranties and fraudulent misrepresentation. The Appellants also challenge Cedarapids, Inc.'s entitlement

to damages on its counterclaim and its recovery of attorney's fees. Specifically, the Appellants ask this court to "reverse the District Court's Memorandum-2-

Opiniondated September 21, 1998, reverse the District Court's Ruling dated May 20, 1997 to the extent it permitted Cedarapids to file its counterclaim, reverse the District Court's March 5, 1999 Ruling awarding Cedarapids attorney's fees, and remand this matter for further findings consistent with this Court's Ruling."
We review the issues raised by the Appellants under well-established standards. Because this is a diversity case, we review de novo questions of state law. Having considered the record in the context of the Appellants' contentions, we reject their allegations of reversible error. We are satisfied the district court correctly applied the controlling law and that none of the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court and a comprehensive opinion would lack precedential value, we conclude that an extensive discussion is unnecessary. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's rulings. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30181

Summary Calendar

RALPH SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TONY CLAYTON; LEA POLK-MONTGOMERY; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL 

COLLEGE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-190

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, 

pertinent portions of the record and the district court opinion. Finding no 

reversible error of law or fact in the district court’s cogent opinion, we AFFIRM

the court’s judgment in favor of the Board of Supervisors and individual 

members thereof.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 12, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30181 Document: 00514719291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2018