alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Report of Independent Public Accountants

 

To Household Finance Corporation:

We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the consolidated financial statements of Household Finance Corporation (the "Company") and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and have issuedour report thereon dated January 15, 2001.  We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2000, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report on thosestatements.

In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the Company was not in compliance with any of the terms, covenants, provisions, or conditions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated November 1, 1996, in conjunction with the Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates Series 1996-2, insofar as they relate to accounting matters.  It should be noted, however, that our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledgeof such noncompliance.

As a part of our audit, we made a study and evaluation of the Companys system of internal accounting controls over the Companys home equity loan portfolio, including those loans serviced under the Agreement to the extent we considered necessary toevaluate the system as required by generally accepted auditing standards.  In accordance with these standards, the purpose of our study and evaluation, which included obtaining an understanding of the accounting systems, was to determine the nature,timing and extent of the auditing procedures necessary for expressing an opinion on the financial statements.  Our study and evaluation also took into consideration certain of the criteria and audit requirements in the Audit Guide for Audits ofNon-Supervised Mortgages Approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  However, certain procedures included in the audit guide are not applicable to the home equity loans being serviced for the Trustee, and therefore, were not performed.

Our audit disclosed no exceptions or errors in records relating to home equity loans serviced for the Trustee that, in our opinion, Section 3.10 of the Agreement required us to report.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors and management of the Company and should not be used for any other purpose.

Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois

January 15, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM    
TRANSCRYPT INT'L INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS 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-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                       430
<INVENTORY>                                      2,853
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,184
<PP&E>                                           6,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,340
<BONDS>                                          1,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,938 
<SALES>                                         10,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,619
<CGS>                                            4,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,518<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,304)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,186)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,118)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)
<FN>
<F1>ITEM INCLUDES ONE TIME CHARGE FOR SPECIAL COMPENSATION EXPENSE OF $5.6 MILLION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:01-cr-00108-RV Document 332 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 2Case 3:01-cr-00108-RV Document 332 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TERESA D. HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00154-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Memorandum of Law. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff requests an extension of time until February

2, 2011 to file her memorandum of law. Defendant does not oppose the requested

relief.

Upon due consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Memorandum of Law (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her memorandum of

law by February 2, 2011. The deadline for Defendant to file his memorandum of law is

extended an equal amount of time until April 4, 2011. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of January, 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HICA EDUCATION LOAN

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:11-cv72-SPM/WCS

HARLIEN JOHNSON

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This case has been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff’s

Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice (doc. 7) and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, the clerk shall close this case.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2011 .

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00072-SPM-WCS Document 8 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011056EN.01000901.xml

| 22.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 February 2011

2011/C 56/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3668 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4553 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84250 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7620 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2960 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7690 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,458 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,01 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7041 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9277 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2328 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1609 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3521 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3444 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6389 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7899 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7436 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 531,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7702 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,9760 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4085 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 095,94 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1510 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,328 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,8620 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,728 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2751 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,4539 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,4890 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3668

JPY

Japanese yen

113,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4553

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84250

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7620

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2960

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7690

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,458

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,01

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7041

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9277

RON

Romanian leu

4,2328

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1609

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3521

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3444

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6389

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7899

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7436

KRW

South Korean won

1 531,28

ZAR

South African rand

9,7702

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,9760

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4085

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 095,94

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1510

PHP

Philippine peso

59,328

RUB

Russian rouble

39,8620

THB

Thai baht

41,728

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2751

MXN

Mexican peso

16,4539

INR

Indian rupee

61,4890

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Order entered April 13, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00088-CR

No. 05-20-00089-CR

No. 05-20-00090-CR

No. 05-20-00091-CR

No. 05-20-00092-CR

No. 05-20-00093-CR

JOSHUA JEFF BARRIER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 070006 Cts. 1-6

ORDER

We REINSTATE these appeals.

We abated for the appointment of new counsel. On April 7, 2020, a 

supplemental clerk’s record was filed with the appointment. We DIRECT the 

Clerk of the Court to list Marcus Olds as counsel for appellant. All future 
correspondence should be sent to Mr. Olds at 111A N. Travis St., Suite 5, 

Sherman, TX 75090. 

The record is due May 8, 2020.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable James 

P. Fallon, Presiding Judge, 15th Judicial District Court; Misty Skinner, court 

reporter, 15th Judicial District Court; Kelly Ashmore, Grayson County District 

Clerk; Marcus Olds; and the Grayson County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr71-SPM

SAMMY LAMY, a/k/a "Sinmy Lamy" 

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count Two of this indictment. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr71-SPM
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 15, 2011. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr71-SPM
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ramona Mayon v. Benson William Robertson Junior

Appellate case number: 01-18-00822-CV

Trial court case number: 462524

Trial court: Probate Court No 4 of Harris County

We have not received the reporter’s record in this matter. The court reporter advised us that 

appellant has not requested preparation of the record. 

The clerk’s record shows that appellant filed a statement of inability and that she is entitled 

to have the record filed at no cost. The Clerk of this Court shall note that appellant is indigent for 

purposes of the record and any filing fees. But appellant must nonetheless request the preparation 

of the record. 

Appellant should advise this court within 10 days whether she has requested the record. If 

no response is received, the court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not require 

a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c) (stating that, if clerk’s record has 

been filed, appellate court may consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a 

reporter’s record). 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Jennifer V. Caughey______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __December 13, 2018____
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 Quarterly  Report of Matches, Inc.   (the "Company") on Form  10-Q for the  period  ending  June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Chen Jinle, Chief Executive  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.   August 15, 2011 /s/ Chen Jinle Chen Jinle Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Date
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GORDON VAUGHN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv02/RS-CJK

J. HINES, et al,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) and

the Mandate from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal (Doc. 15). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and is

incorporated in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted.

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

 ORDERED on June 8, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00002-RS-CJK Document 16 Filed 06/08/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DARRELL TRAVIS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 20, and 

the objections, ECF No. 23. The objections include nothing of substance but 

instead incorporate by reference papers that were filed before entry of the report 

and recommendation. The objections and thus are insufficient to preserve any 

issues. But this makes no difference; I would reach the same result on de novo

review. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court’s 

opinion.

Case 4:09-cv-00327-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/19/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may 

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were “ ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.’ ” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. 

Case 4:09-cv-00327-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/19/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:09cv327-RH/WCS

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 19, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00327-RH-WCS Document 24 Filed 02/19/12 Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00283-CV

IN RE: CASTLE & COOKE MORTGAGE, L.L.C.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

The court has considered relator’s petition, real party in interest’s response, and relator’s 

reply for a writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief and is of the opinion the relator is 

not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus, and 

motion for emergency relief, is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CI-01575, styled Diamond T Ranch Development, Inc. v. 

Castle & Cooke Mortgage, LLC, pending in the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable 

John D. Gabriel, Jr. presiding.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Guanwei Recycling Corp. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Chen
Min, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





1. The
Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
      August 16, 2010/s/ Chen MinChen
      Min
                Chief
      Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CLARRISA OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-307-RS-MD

PHYAMERICA GOVERNMENT SERVICES

INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested in Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a 

Reply Brief and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 39) is GRANTED. Defendant shall 

file the reply not later than August 24, 2011.

ORDERED on August 17, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00307-RS-CJK Document 40 Filed 08/17/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PLANT BINGO, LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv64/RS-MD

WILD BILL’S BINGO, INC., a Florida

corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

WILD BILL’S BINGO, INC., a Florida

corporation,

Counter-Claimant,

vs.

PLANET BINGO, LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company,

Counter-Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER

Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 5) is denied.

ORDERED on April 30, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BAILEY INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10mc64/MCR/EMT

CLJP, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Incorporated

Memorandum of Law (Doc. 1). Before the court rules on this matter, Defendant shall have an

opportunity to respond.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s motion on or before THURSDAY, AUGUST 26,

2010. Prior to responding, Defendant shall fully review this court’s “Order Concerning Discovery

Disputes,” which will be issued by separate order on today’s date.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of August 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE