alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP                                                      EXHIBIT 18



November 13, 1998




Mrs. Valerie Donnell
Chief Financial Officer
CNB Holdings, Inc.
7855 North Point Parkway
Suite 200
Alpharetta, Georgia  30022

Dear Mrs. Donnell:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit in the filing of
Form 10-QSB of CNB Holdings, Inc. (Company) pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation
S-B.

We have read management's justification for the Company's change in accounting
method for reporting on the costs of start-up activities. In 1998, the
Accounting Standards Board's Executive Committee issued Statement of Position
98-5, which requires that the costs of start-up activities, including
organization costs, be expensed as incurred. The Company elected to expense its
previously deferred organizational costs in the third quarter ended September
30, 1998. Based upon our discussions with Company management and their stated
reasons for the change, we concur that the newly adopted accounting principle
described above is preferable, in the Company's circumstances, to the method
previously applied.

We have not made an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards of the financial statements of the Company for the three-month or
nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998 or September 30, 1997 and,
accordingly, we express no opinion thereon or on the financial information filed
as part of the Form 10-QSB of which this letter is to be an exhibit.

Very truly yours,


BDO Seidman, LLP
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3318]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-73-004]


ANR Pipeline Co.; Notice of Refund Report

February 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 6, 1995, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 
tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) its Refund Report made pursuant to the Commission's letter 
dated September 30, 1994, in Docket No. RP94-73-003.
    ANR states that it made a refund totalling $64,380.05, including 
$2,047.18 in interest, to High Island Offshore System (HIOS) for 
services at the Grand Chenier facilities under Rate Schedule X-64 for 
the period of January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All 
such protests should be filed on or before February 13, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3318 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### SANDRA PARNELL, by her Next Friend, EUGENE C. SEDBERRY, v. E. L. WILSON, MARSHALL WILSON and HAROLD BULL.

(Filed 4 May, 1960.)

Appeal by defendants from *Crissman, J.,*November 1959 Term, of Guileoed (High Point Division).

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff because of the joint and concurring negligence of defendants.

Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned and being driven by defendant Bull northwardly along North Carolina Highway 68 in Guilford County. This automobile met and collided with a car being driven by defendant Marshall Wilson and owned by his father, E. L. Wilson. The collision occurred about 11:00 P. M. on 2 November 1957 near Carroll's Store. The cars met and collided about the center of the paved highway. Plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff was injured because of the joint and concurrent negligence of the drivers for that both were driving at speeds greater than was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, failed to pass to the right and yield one-half of the main traveled portion of the highway, drove to the left of the double yellow line on a curve, drove to the left of the center of the highway, failed to keep a reasonable lookout, and failed to keep their vehicles under proper control. It was further alleged that the defendant Bull attempted to make a left turn without giving a signal and without ascertaining he could make the turn in safety, and that defendant Wilson was driving in excess of the maximum speed allowed by law and was under the influence of intoxicants.

Each defendant, answering, denied the allegations of negligence *487and alleged that the other suddenly turned to the left, created an emergency, and caused the collision.

The jury verdict declared that plaintiff was injured by the joint and concurrent negligence of the defendants and awarded damages in the amount of $10,000.00.

From judgment in accordance with the verdict defendants appealed.

*Schoch & Schoch and Sedberry, Sanders ■& Walker for 'plaintiff.*

*Martin ■& Whitley for defendants E. L. Wilson and Marshall Wilson.*

*Deal, Hutchins and Minor for defendant Harold Bull.*

Per Ctjeiam.

There was evidence supporting the allegations of joint and concurrent negligence proximately causing plaintiff’s injuries. The weight of the evidence was for the jury. The exceptions of defendant Bull to the exclusion of evidence and the rulings of the court with reference to arguments of counsel are not sustained. If erroneous in any respect, they were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The charge of the court, when considered contextually, adequately presented the law applicable to the factual situations disclosed by the evidence. The burden is on the defendants to show prejudicial error. *Taylor Co. v. Highway Commission,*250 N.C. 533, 539, 109 S.E. 2d 243.

In the trial below we find No error.
II 

Calendar No. 241 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3461 

To provide that the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating 

to ‘‘COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard’’ shall have no force or effect, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2022 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JANUARY 18, 2022 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide that the rule submitted by the Department of 

Labor relating to ‘‘COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; 

Emergency Temporary Standard’’ shall have no force 

or effect, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting Private 

5 Sector Vaccine Mandates Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3461 PCS

1 SEC. 2. OSHA COVID–19 VACCINATION MANDATE. 

2 No funds appropriated, or otherwise made available, 

3 may be used to implement, finalize, or otherwise carry out 

4 the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating 

5 to ‘‘COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency 

6 Temporary Standard’’ (86 Fed. Reg. 61402 (November 

7 5, 2021)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 241 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3461 

A BILL 

To provide that the rule submitted by the Departpurposes. ard’’ shall have no force or effect, and for other tion and Testing; Emergency Temporary Stand- ment of Labor relating to ‘‘COVID–19 VaccinaJANUARY 18, 2022 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### DELILAH EMILY SMITH v. JATHA BOYD SMITH.

(Filed 28 September, 1955.)

1. Appeal and Error § 23—

An assignment of error tliat the judge had no jurisdiction to hear the motion and sign the judgment, without exception in the record, requires dismissal of the appeal, since the rule that an assignment of error not supported by an exception will be disregarded, is mandatory and will be enforced *ex mero motu.*

2. Judges § 2a—

The judge holding the courts of a district as then constituted has jurisdiction to hear a motion under G.S. 50-16. The statute increasing the number of judicial districts did not go into effect until from and after 1 July 1955. Session Laws 1955, Chapter 129.

WinbobNE and Higghsts, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*presiding over the June Term 1955 of Chaven. JoNes.

Civil action instituted in accordance with G.S. 50-16 for reasonable subsistence for plaintiff and the one-year-old child born of the marriage and for counsel fees in the Superior Court of Jones County. The plaintiff in the complaint requésted the custody of the child. The defendant filed an answer raising issues of fact. The defendant was properly served with notice that the plaintiff at 2:00 p.m. on 6 June 1955 in the courthouse in New Bern would make application before Judge Bone, presiding judge of the 5th Judicial District, and presiding that day over the Superior Court of Craven County, for reasonable subsistence for herself and child and for counsel fees.

The defendant appeared, pursuant to the notice, and both plaintiff and defendant offered evidence. Judge Bone entered an order that the defendant pay to plaintiff $50.00 a month for the maintenance and support of plaintiff and their child pending the final determination of the action, pay $100.00 counsel fees to her lawyer, and awarded the custody of the child to plaintiff pending the final determination of the action.

The defendant did not except to the judgment. The defendant has no exception in the record.

Defendant appeals, assigning as error that Judge Bone had no jurisdiction to hear the motion, and to sign the judgment over defendant’s protest.

*Donald P. Brock for Plaintiff, Appellee.*

*Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for Defendant, Appellant.*

*647PeR CubiaM.

Defendant’s single assignment of error is not supported by an exception. It is thoroughly well settled law in this State that an assignment of error not supported by an exception will be disregarded. The rule is mandatory, and will be enforced *ex mero motu. Barnette v. Woody, ante,*424, 88 S.E. 2d 223; *Suits v. Insurance Co.,*241 N.C. 483, 85 S.E. 2d 602.

Judge Bone was holding the Superior Courts of the district in which the action was brought — -Jones County in June 1955 was in the 5th Judicial District — -and had jurisdiction to hear the motion by the express language of G.S. 50-16. The statute increasing the number of judicial districts did not go into effect until from and after 1 July 1955. Session Laws 1955, Chapter 129.

Appeal dismissed.

Winborne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8413-8414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3626]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated July 19, 1994, and published in the Federal 
Register on July 28, 1994 (59 FR 38492), Dupont Pharmaceuticals, The 
Dupont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, 1000 Stewart Avenue, Garden City, 
New York 11530, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Drug                               Schedule 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxycodone (9143)...........................................  II         
Hydrocodone (9193).........................................  II         
Oxymorphone (9652).........................................  II         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments or objections have been received. Therefore, pursuant 
to Section [[Page 8414]] 303 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Control Act of 1970 and Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, 
Section 1301.54(e), the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the 
above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes 
of controlled substances listed above is granted.

    Dated: February 6, 1995.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-3626 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B7.11: Beginning in January 2026, eliminate the retirement earnings test for all beneficiaries under normal retirement age, including retired workers, aged spouses, aged widow(er)s, young spouses with a child in care, young surviving spouses with a child in care, and children.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B5.7: Beginning for those newly eligible in 2026, reconfigure the special minimum benefit: (a) The number of years of work (YOWs) is determined as total quarters of coverage divided by 4, ignoring any fraction. Childcare years are granted to parents who have a child under 6, with a limit of 5 such years. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 30+ YOWs equal to 100 percent of the monthly HHS poverty level for the year prior to eligibility. For workers between 11 and 29 YOWs, reduce the special minimum by 3 1/3 percentage points per YOW so that at 29 YOWs the minimum would be 96 2/3% of poverty, ..., down to 11 YOWs at 36 2/3% of poverty. No minimum for 10 or fewer YOWs.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent of KPMG LLP

Independent Auditors Consent

The Board of Directors
SBS Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements of SBS Technologies, Inc. of our report dated August 11, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SBS Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 2003, and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2003, which
report appears in the June 30, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of SBS
Technologies, Inc..

Our report refers to the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,
effective July 1, 2002.

RegistrationForm
    
    Statement No.
    
    DescriptionS-8
    
    333-23053
    
    SBS Technologies, Inc. 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and the SBS Technologies, Inc. 1997 Employee Incentive
Stock Option PlanS-8
    
    033-98558
    
    SBS Technologies, Inc. 1992 Employee Incentive Stock
Option Plan; SBS Technologies, Inc. 1993 Incentive Stock
Option Plan; SBS Technologies, Inc. 1993 Director And
Officer Stock Option Plan; SBS Technologies, Inc. 1995
Incentive Stock Option Plan; SBS Technologies, Inc. 1996
Incentive Stock Option PlanS-8
    
    333-68945
    
    SBS Technologies, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Equity Incentive PlanS-8
    
    333-69260
    
    SBS Technologies, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Equity Incentive PlanS-3
    
    333-20129
    
    SBS Technologies, Inc. Common StockS-3
    
    333-36948
    
    SBS Technologies, Inc. Common Stock


KPMG LLP

Albuquerque, New Mexico
September 23, 2003
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 0.76% 1.20% -1.16% -4.5

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Cost-of-Living Adjustment

Proposed Provision: Beginning December 2006, reduce cost-of-living adjustment for OASDI percentage point

January 11, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
### Proposed Provision: B7.5. Increase benefits by 5 percent for all beneficiaries as of the beginning of 2024 and for those newly eligible for benefits after the beginning of 2024.
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard A. Waldron, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2007 |  |  |  | /S/    RICHARD A.
WALDRON                                              
|                     |  |  |  | Richard A. Waldron Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be
retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BADIE H. CONYARD v. LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE.

(Filed 12 April, 1933.)

1. Insurance R a—

A private one and one-half ton motor driven truck is a “private motor driven car” within the meaning of that term as used in a policy of accident insurance.

2. Insurance E b—

Where an insurance policy is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, the one more favorable to the insured will be adopted.

Appeal by defendant from *Cowper, Special Judge,*at January Term, 1933, of AlamaNCE.

Simon Conyard was fatally injured 19 April, 1932, by accidental means when the private Chevrolet one and one-half ton motor driven truck, in which he was driving at the time, struck the embankment of the highway and threw him violently to the hard surface portion of the road. The deceased held an insurance policy with the defendant company which provided an indemnity of $1,000 for death from accidental bodily injuries resulting from the “collision of or by any accident to any private drawn vehicle or private motor driven car in which the insured is riding or driving.” The plaintiff, wife of the deceased, was named as beneficiary in said policy.

There was judgment for the plaintiff, from which the’defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Long & Long for plaintiff.*

*Long & Ross for defendant.*

*507Stacy, C. J.

Is a private Chevrolet one and one-half ton motor driven truck a “private motor driven car” within the meaning of the policy in suit? The case was made to turn on the answer to this question in the court below, and we are disposed to agree with his Honor that it is.

The term “motor driven car” is broad enough to include a motor driven truck, and we cannot say a narrower interpretation was intended by the parties. The rule of construction is, that when an insurance policy is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, the one more favorable to the assured will be adopted. “The policy having been prepared by the insurers, it should be construed most strongly against them.” *Bank v. Ins. Co.,*95 U. S., 673; *Jolley v. Ins. Co.,*199 N. C., 269, 154 S. E., 400; *Underwood v. Ins. Co.,*185 N. C., 538, 117 S. E., 790.

There was nothing said in *Lloyd v. Ins. Co.,*200 N. C., 722, 158 S. E., 386, *Anderson v. Ins. Co.,*197 N. C., 72, 147 S. E., 693, or *Gant v. Ins. Co.,*197 N. C., 122, 147 S. E., 740, which militates against the position here taken.

Affirmed.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.4: Eliminate the taxable maximum for years 2030 and later (phased in 2024-2030), and apply full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate to all earnings. Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings from each year after 2023 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; (2) a new bend point equal to $9,360 in 2024, indexed by wages after 2024; and (3) formula factors of 3 percent and 0.25 percent below and above the new bend point, respectively.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-11281, 333-17593, 333-29787,333-39693, 333-52357, 333-79599, 333-87635, 333-89891, 333-51380, 333-57698, 333-67292, 333-101262) and Form S-3 (No. 333-36557) of PTEK Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2003 relating to the financial statements, which appears in thisAmendment No. 1 to Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

December 19, 2003