alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EX-15

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors of:
Global Medical Products Holdings and Subsidiaries
(A Development Stage Company)


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global
Medical Products Holdings and Subsidiaries (a development stage company) as of
June 30, 2003 and the condensed consolidated statements of operations and cash
flows for the six months ended June 30, 2003, included in the accompanying
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2003. These condensed consolidated financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements in order
for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared
assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note
4 to the condensed consolidated financial statements, the Company's lack of
significant revenue source, pending acquisitions, stockholders' deficiency of
$7,552,250, net loss from operations of $421,300 and cash used in operations of
$40,014, raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern. Management's plan in regards to these matters is also described in Note
4. The condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.


JAY J. SHAPIRO, CPA
A professional corp


Los Angeles, California
August 19, 2003


                                       14
#### BALTIMORE TRUST COMPANY, Trustee, v. GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner.

(Filed 15 March, 1933.)

Appeal by defendant from *Sink, J.,*at June Term, 1932, of BUNCOMBE.

Civil action to establish preference, or priority of plaintiff’s claim against funds in the hands of liquidating agent of insolvent bank.

The case was heard by the court without the intervention of a jury, upon facts agreed or found without objection:

The Federal Mortgage Company and Standard Mortgage Company issued certain bonds with interest coupons attached, secured by indentures duly registered. These bonds and coupons were payable at the Central Bank and Trust Company, named as trustee in each indenture for such purpose. To meet the interest represented by maturing coupons, the Federal Mortgage Company and the Standard Mortgage Company deposited with the Central Bank and Trust Company $7,121.75 and $3,262.35 respectively, and these amounts were entered upon the books of the trust department as having been received for the respective purposes of paying said coupons.

When the Central Bank and Trust Company failed, 19 November, 1930, the above amounts had not been applied to the payment of interest coupons, and according to the records of the trust department of the bank, said amounts are still held for said purposes.

Plaintiff sues as substituted trustee.

The court found that the amounts so deposited with the Central Bank and Trust Company by the Federal Mortgage Company and the Standard Mortgage Company constituted special deposits for specific purposes and adjudged that plaintiff was entitled to a preference of $10,384.10 against the assets in the hands of the liquidating agent, “and to be paid in full, if there is a sufficient amount realized from the liquidation of the said bank to pay the same in full; and, if not, that it share pro rata with the other preferred claims against said trust, as finally determined by the courts.”

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Alfred S. Barnard for plaintiff.*

*Johnson, Smothers & Rollins for defendant.*

Pee CueiaM.

Affirmed on authority of *Safe Deposit Co. v. Hood, Comr., ante,*346, and *Flack v. Hood, Comr., ante,*337.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
21.1

LINCARE HOLDINGS INC. ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES
AND PARTNERSHIPS

DELAWARE
CORPORATIONS:

1) Alpha Respiratory Inc.

2) Gamma Acquisition Inc.

3) Health Care Solutions at Home Inc.

4) Home-Care Equipment Network Inc.

5) Lincare Holdings Inc.

6) Lincare Inc.

7) Lincare Licensing Inc.

8) Lincare Pharmacy Services Inc.

9) Lincare Procurement Inc.

10) Med 4 Home Inc.

11) HCS Lancaster LLC

INDIANA CORPORATION:

1) ConvaCare Services Inc.

MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY:

1) Healthlink Medical Equipment LLC

NEW YORK CORPORATION:

1) Lincare of
New York Inc.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50203

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME EDUARDO ALARCON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. EP-95-CV-488-H)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 30, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Eduardo Alarcon appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Alarcon argues that his guilty plea

was unknowing and involuntary, the factual basis was inadequate to

support his guilty plea, counsel was ineffective because he coerced
2

Alarcon into entering a guilty plea, and the district court erred

in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Alarcon failed to establish that his guilty plea, which was

allegedly based on an unkept promise, was unknowing and

involuntary. See United States v. Smith, 915 F.2d 959, 963

(5th Cir. 1990). The district court's finding that the factual

basis was sufficient to support the plea was not clearly erroneous.

See United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 1992). The

district court did not err in determining that Alarcon’s guilty

plea was not coerced. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74

(1977). Alarcon’s contention that counsel was ineffective for

failing to investigate or file pretrial motions was not adequately

briefed and is thus deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court did not err in refusing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing because the record is sufficient for

determination of Alarcon’s contentions. See United States v.

Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S.

1104 (1991).

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 4556 Meritor Savings Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Meritor Savings Bank (Receivership Estate). The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

Effective February 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: February 2, 2016.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-02234 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4935]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Importation of Controlled Substances; Application

    Pursuant to section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a 
regulation under section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a 
substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk 
manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 1311.42 of title 21, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on December 13, 
1994, Lonza Riverside, 900 River Road, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 
19428, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be 
registered as an importer of Phenylacetone (8501) a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm is importing the Phenylacetone to manufacture 
Dextroamphetamine Sulfate.
    Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of this basic class of controlled substance may file 
written comments on or objections to the application described above 
and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such 
application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 in such form as 
prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such comments, objections, or requests for a hearing may be 
addressed to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion 
Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register 
Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than (30 days from 
publication).
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and 
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1311.42 (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46 
(September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import a basic 
class of any controlled substance in Schedule I or II are and will 
continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1311.42 (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: February 17, 1995.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-4935 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from
Financial  Statements  for the three (3) months ended  December 31, 1999, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such form 10-QSB for quarterly
period ended  December 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                              1,933
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       1,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   13,360
<PP&E>                                              6,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                      5,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     24,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              41,277
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                        2,033,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                          1000
<OTHER-SE>                                        (17,151)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       24,126
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,331
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   31,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     1,331
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (29,960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (29,960)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.22)



</TABLE>
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2016. Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earners. Maintain current-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors (32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average wages. |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 26, 2009 |
#### R. P. HALES, GEORGIA HALES and TAMAH SHAW v. NATIONAL LAND EXCHANGE, a Corporation.

(Filed 21 May, 1941.)

Judgments § 24 — Interlocutory consent judgment is subject to modification by court order which does not encroach upon rights of parties.

In an action on notes secured by mortgage and to foreclose same, consent judgment was entered for the sale of the land by two commissioners with provision that the cause be remanded to the clerk for further orders. Sale was enjoined, and upon dissolution of the injunction, the court entered an order that the lands be sold, and appointed one of the two commissioners named in the consent judgment to make the sale after advertisement. *Sold:*As far as the sale was concerned, the consent judgment was interlocutory, and the court had the power to modify it by order of sale which did not infringe upon the rights of the parties.

Appeal by defendant from *Hamilton, Special Judge,*at November Special Term, 1940, of BladeN.

Civil action for recovery on notes secured by mortgage deed and for foreclosure of mortgage under power of sale therein contained.

At May Term, 1939, a consent judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs against defendant for the amount of indebtedness alleged in the complaint, to the payment of which certain lands described in the judgment were condemned to be sold on Monday, 11 December, 1939, at public auction for cash under the direction of the court, and in which two commissioners were appointed to so sell the land, and in which the cause was remanded to clerk of Superior Court for further orders. Pending-advertisement the sale was enjoined, and later the injunction was dissolved. Thereupon, at November Special Term, 1940, the presiding judge entered a judgment, ordering that the lands be sold on Monday, 30 December, 1940, at public auction for cash, and appointing one of the two commissioners named in the consent judgment to make the sale after advertising notice thereof as therein set forth.

In other respects this judgment is in conformity with the consent judgment. The cause is retained for further orders.

Defendant appealed therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*R. J. Hester, Jr., and H. H. Clark for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*Kirkpatrick <& Kirkpatrick for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The consent judgment, in so far as it pertained to the sale of the land, was an interlocutory order in the cause, and has validity because of the approval of the judge, and was subject to modification by *652the judge like any other such order, provided it did not infringe upon the rights of the parties. See *Fowler v. Winders,*185 N. C., 105, 116 S. E., 177. Compare *Coburn v. Comrs.,*191 N. C., 68, 131 S. E., 372.

No encroachment upon rights of parties appears. Hence, the judgment will be

Affirmed.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Coverage of Employment or Earnings, or Inclusion of Other Sources of Revenue

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						F9: Apply a separate 12.4 percent tax on investment income as defined in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with unindexed thresholds as in the ACA ($200,000 single filer, $250,000 for married filing joint), starting in 2025. Proceeds go to the OASDI Trust Funds.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
#### FRANCES HILLIARD BRENDLE, by Her Next Friend, HOMER B. BRENDLE, v. RICHARD STAFFORD, THURMAN SMITH and RONALD SMITH.

(Filed 8 May, 1957.)

1. Venue § la—

Where, in an action for personal injuries, the evidence supports the court’s finding that at the time the action was instituted and summons issued and served on defendant, defendant was a resident of the county, *219defendant’s motion to remove as a matter of right is properly denied. G.S. 1-82.

3. Venue § 4b—

A motion to remove for the convenience of parties and witnesses is addressed to the discretion of the court.

Appeal by defendant Thurman Smith from *Olive, J.,*18 March, 1957 Civil Term, Guileoed Superior Court (High Point Division).

This is a civil action to recover damages for personal injury. The defendant Thurman Smith made a motion to remove the cause to Forsyth County for trial as a matter of right upon the grounds (1) the injury occurred in Forsyth or Davidson County, (2) the plaintiff resides in Davidson County, the defendants reside in Forsyth County. The defendant also asked that the cause be removed to Forsyth County for convenience of parties and witnesses.

Upon the evidence offered by affidavit, the court found as a fact that the defendant Richard Stafford, at the time suit was brought and process served, was a resident of Guilford County. The court denied the motion to remove. From the refusal, the defendant Thurman Smith appealed, assigning errors.

*J. F. Motsinger for defendant Thurman Smith, appellant.*

*J. W. Clontz for plaintiff, appellee.*

PeR CüRiam.

The evidence, though conflicting, was amply sufficient to support the finding that the defendant Stafford was a resident of Guilford County at the time the action was instituted. An action such as this may be brought in the county where the plaintiffs or the defendants, or any one of them, had residence at the time summons was issued. G.S. 1-82. Removal for convenience is discretionary.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.5


SCHEDULE OF OMITTED NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS




						
	Optionee:

	Date of Grant:

	Number of Shares Covered by Option:

	Exercise Price:

	Vesting Start Date:

	Vesting Schedule:


	Jennifer Calise

	April 1, 2011

	600,000

	$0.0167 per share

	April 1, 2011

	12,500 stock options per month


	Christina O’Malley

	May 2, 2011

	600,000

	$0.0167 per share

	May 2, 2011

	12,500 stock options per month


	Erin Webb

	April 1, 2011

	300,000

	$0.0167 per share

	April 1, 2011

	6,250 stock options per month







Aside from the information noted, and the social security numbers of each Consultant, all of the terms and conditions in each Consulting Agreement are identical.