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



Exhibit 99.4

COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR U.S. READERS
ON CANADA-U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCES

In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there are
changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on the
comparability of the financial statements, such as the changes described in
Note 1 to BCE Inc.s consolidated financial statements or when there is a
retroactive restatement such as that described in Note 23(d). Our report to the shareholders dated February 26, 2003 is expressed in accordance with
Canadian reporting standards, which do not require a reference to such changes
in accounting principles in the auditors report when the changes are properly
accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements.

| |                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | (signed) Deloitte & Touche LLPDeloitte & Touche LLP

Montreal, Canada
February 26, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet, consolidated statement of operations and
consolidated statement of cash flows included in the Company's Form 10-Q for the
period ending February 28, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           4,594
<SECURITIES>                                     9,958
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                       537
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,992
<PP&E>                                           3,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,925
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,328
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,210
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (453)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (193)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (260)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.02

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 iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Ramachandran Natesan, Chief Financial Officer 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 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|/S/    RAMACHANDRAN NATESAN                 
|Ramachandran Natesan Chief Financial
Officer

Date: May 5, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Richard E. Gathright, certify that:

   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Streicher Mobile
Fueling, Inc.;

   2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

   4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end the
      period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      third fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
      to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.

   5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2004



/S/ RICHARD E. GATHRIGHT
-------------------------------------
Richard E. Gathright
President and Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2243** 

JAMES LAWRENCE SMITH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. HONORABLE ED CLONTZ; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; MARTHA ELIZABETH GRIST; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00269

- MR

- DLH )

Submitted : February 12 , 2015 Decided: February 1 8 , 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Lawrence Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Lawrence Smith appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (20 12 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Clontz , No. 1:14

- cv - 00269

- MR

- DLH (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 20, 2014, entered Oct. 21, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00561-CR

Phillip Lyle Tignor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 13,893-A, HONORABLE CURT F. STEIB, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Phillip Lyle Tignor filed a “request for nunc pro tunc order” in the district court

seeking a restoration of time credits he lost when his parole was revoked. The court denied the

motion and Tignor filed notice of appeal.

We do not have jurisdiction except as expressly granted by law. See Apolinar v.

State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No appeal lies from an order denying a request

for judgment nunc pro tunc. Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d).

We are not aware of any statute vesting this Court with jurisdiction over this appeal.
2

The appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 23, 2005

Do Not Publish
203 La. 1067

#### OPPENHEIM v. TOYE BROS. YELLOW CAB CO. et al.

No. 36753.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1943.

Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Redmann and Edward H. Sutter, all of New Orleans, for applicant.

A. D. Danziger, of New Orleans, for respondent.

PONDER, Justice.

This case comes to us on review from the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans.

The plaintiff, Gertrude Optpenhe¡¡m, brought this suit ■ against the defendants, Louis H. Edyburn and the Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company, seeking to recover damages for an injury she received in an automobile collision between the defendant Edyburn’s car, which was being driven by the defendant Edyburn, and a taxicab owned by. the Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company in which the plaintiff was riding as a passenger.

The plaintiff failed to obtain citation of the defendant Edyburn and elected to. prosecute her demand against the defendant taxicab company on the contract of carriage. Upon trial, the lower court gave-judgment in favor of the plaintiff awarding her damages in the sum of $1,500.. On appeal to the Court of Appeal for the-Parish of Orleans, the judgment was reversed and the plaintiff’s suit dismissed at her cost. 7 So.2d 420. A writ of review was granted herein, and the matter is now submitted for our consideration..

We granted a review in this case for the reason that we had some doubt as to* whether the law was correctly stated with reference to the degree of care required of a carrier of passengers when confronted with an emergency brought about by the-reckless abandon of a third party in the-operation of an automobile.

The Court of Appeal, after arriving at the conclusion that the emergency was-brought about by the reckless abandon of Edyburn in the operation of his automobile,, the creation of which the taxicab driver was in no way involved, stated in effect that the taxicab driver did what any: reasonable, prudent operator of a motor vehicle would have done under similar-circumstances.

After reading the testimony in this case,, we find that it is correctly analyzed by the Court of Appeal and shows that the taxicab driver exercised the highest degree-of care in endeavoring to avoid the im-' pending disaster brought about by the-gross negligence of Edyburn. The purport of the holding of the Court of Appeal, is to this effect. The statement in the-opinion of the Court of Appeal to the-effect that the taxicab driver did what any reasonable, prudent operator of a. motor vehicle would have done when confronted with an emergency is mere sur-plusage and not necessary to a decision im this case. No purpose could be gained in. *855discussing a principle of law not applicable to the facts of this case.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans is affirmed at plaintiff’s cost.

ROGERS, J., absent.
#### Mark Van Valkenburgh, Plaintiff, v Frederick G. Koehler et al., Defendants. John L. Renzo, as Father and Natural Guardian of Paul Renzo, an Infant, Respondent, v Frederick G. Koehler et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. John L. Renzo, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Eleanor V. Renzo, Deceased, Respondent, v Freder*973ick G. Koehler et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. John L. Renzo, as Father and Natural Guardian of Paul Renzo, an Infant, Respondent, v Tops Friendly Markets, Inc., Appellant. John L. Renzo, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Eleanor V. Renzo, Deceased, Respondent, v Tops Friendly Markets, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 4.)

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and new trial granted. Same memorandum as in *Van Valkenburgh v Koehler*([appeal No. 2] 164 AD2d 971 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.—negligence and Dram Shop Act violation.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00138-CR

OTIS JUSTIN EVANS, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Franklin County, Texas

Trial Court No. F9225

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

The appellant, Otis Justin Evans, III, has filed a motion, through counsel, to extend the 

deadline for filing his brief in this matter. The brief was due November 8, 2017.

In the motion, counsel does not provide the Court with any explanation, much less a 

reasonable one, of the need for an extension of time. This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)(1) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as requiring counsel to provide specific information to justify 

a requested extension, including the cause numbers of cases in which other briefs were filed; the 

dates they were filed; the dates, cause numbers, and courts of matters scheduled for trial; the exact 

dates of trial (if known); the expected duration of trial; etc. Broad, general statements do not 

provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the rule. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 10.5(b)(1).

All future motions to extend time must contain case-specific information adequate to 

justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant Evans’ motion and extend the deadline for filing his brief by 

twenty-one days, making the brief now due November 29, 2017. Absent extraordinary 

circumstances, further requests for extensions of time will not be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: November 21, 2017
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

# AGENCY:

Office of Refugee Resettlement, ACF, DHHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of a Noncompetitive Successor Award to California Department of Public Health.

*CFDA #*: 93.576                

*Legislative Authority:*                     This Program is authorized by section 412(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended (8 U.S.C. 1522(b)(5)), which                           ( print page 58248)                        authorizes the Director to provide for medical screening and initial medical treatment.                

*Amount of Award:*                     There are three years remaining in the project The remaining funds to be awarded is $1,425,000.                

*Project Period:*                     July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2010.                

# SUMMARY:

The purpose of the ORR award is to assist California in providing medical screenings in accordance with ORR guidance in State Letter 95-37, 11/21/95, and follow-up activities to newly arriving refugees for conditions of public health concern. California Senate Bill 162 established a new California Department of Public Health to take the place of the California Department of Health Services which ceased to exist. California requests that the funds be awarded to the new California Department of Public Health to carry out the remaining years of the project.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Further information regarding the request may be directed to Pam Green-Smith at 202-401-4531,                         *pamela.greensmith@acf.hhs.gov*.                    

Date: September 30, 2008.

David H. Siegel,

Acting Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

 [FR Doc. E8-23479 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000719488
<NAME> GRANDBANC, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,460
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,837
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,395
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          10,970
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0<F1>
<LOANS>                                         77,446
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,872
<DEPOSITS>                                      88,698
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,698
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                490
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              404
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 103,872
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,960
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  904
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   244
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,108
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,811
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,130
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,977
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,209
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,621
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,207)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (1,207)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.21
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,772
<LOANS-PAST>                                        13
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,016
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      586
<RECOVERIES>                                        63
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,702
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,335
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            367<F2>
<FN>
<F1>NOT BROKEN OUT IN KSB
<F2>ALL UNALLOCATED IS FOR DOMESTIC LOANS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Daniel BYRD v. STATE.

8 Div. 137.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

RICE, Judge;

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES WILLIAM DAVIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-1782

April 26, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Gregory G. Groger, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Andrea M. Norgard, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel R. 

Mandelbaum, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Cerese Crawford 

Taylor, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel 

of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.