alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<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>                                          43,721
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    149,254
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          56,241
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            57,949
<LOANS>                                        687,218
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 960,552
<DEPOSITS>                                     710,131
<SHORT-TERM>                                   105,825
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,539
<LONG-TERM>                                     22,841
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 960,552
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 63,968
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,644
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    34
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                77,646
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              29,288
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,242
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           41,404
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,883
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  35
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 30,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,271
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      16,271
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.91
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,158
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,207
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,600
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,004
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,159
<RECOVERIES>                                       515
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,243
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,243
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 34.2

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Shareholder
First National Credit Card Center, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that First National Credit Card Center, Inc. (FNCCC), which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First National Bank of Omaha (FNBO), complied with
the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for asset backed securities transactions involving
credit card receivables conducted by First National Master Note Trust (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 112(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv)
and 1122(d)(4)(x), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by FNCCC with respect to the Platform. Management is
responsible for FNCCC's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about FNCCC's
compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about FNCCC's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
FNCCC performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by FNCCC during the period covered by
this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform.
Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by FNCCC during the
period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the FNCCC's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that FNCCC complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Omaha, Nebraska
March 27, 2009
#### In the Matter of Samantha T., Appellant. Dean of Students at Sodus High School, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 626]

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Wayne County (Sirkin, J.), entered August 2, 2001, which adjudicated respondent a person in need of supervision.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision and placed with the Wayne County Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months. Contrary to the contention of respondent, the procedural safeguards applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3 do not apply in this proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 7, and she was “sufficiently advised of her rights to the extent required” pursuant to Family Ct Act § 741 *(Matter of Tabitha LL.,*87 NY2d 1009, 1011). Respondent was properly “advised of the * * * right to remain silent and * * * to be represented by counsel” (§ 741 [a]).

We further reject respondent’s contention that the dispositional order is legally deficient. Although Family Court used a “form” order, the court found therein that, based upon certain enumerated documents and the testimony at the dispositional hearing, respondent requires supervision and placement because she “continues her behavior despite efforts to permit her to remain in the community.” The order further provides that continued placement at home would be contrary to respondent’s best interests. Thus, we conclude that the order properly complies with Family Ct Act § 754 (2) *(see Matter of Latoya S.,*231 AD2d 844; *cf. Matter of Tynisah S.,*201 AD2d 958). Finally, the court properly determined that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interests of respondent require placement away from her parents (see *generally*§ 745 [b]; *Matter of Justin H.,*278 AD2d 555, 556-557; *Matter of Harry J.,*191 AD2d 1016, 1017). Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
Case 1:11-cv-02718-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02718-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02718-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 13, 2008, Halo 
Pharmaceutical Inc., 30 North Jefferson Road, Whippany, New Jersey 
07981, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dihydromorphine is an intermediate in the manufacture of 
Hydromorphone and is not for commercial distribution. The company plans 
to manufacture Hydromorphone HCL for sale to other manufacturers and 
for the manufacture of other controlled substance dosage units for 
distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than December 15, 2008.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
 Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-24310 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

Certification

 

The undersigned officer of Natrol, Inc. (the“Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that to the best of my knowledge, theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

 
| Date:  | 08/14/2002 |   | Name:  | /s/Elliott Balbert     |
|--------|------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |       |   |   |                   |
|   |       |   | Title: | President/CEO/Chairman |

 

 

 

----
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 25, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No s

. 3D 22

- 483 & 3D22

- 488 Lower Tribunal No. 1 9

- 28710

________________ Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, et al. , Appellant s ,
vs. Odalys Fortes, etc. , Appellee.
Appeal s from a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, William Thomas , Judge. Geraldine Bonzon

- Keenan, Miami

- Dade County Attorney, and Richard Schevis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant Miami

- Dade County; Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Jam es M. Fishman , for appellant Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

. Armand & Dieguez, P.A., and Arturo A. Armand and Manuel A. Dieguez; Raposo & Lukacs, PLLC, and John C. Lukacs, Jr., and Jose A. Raposo, Jr. , for appellee.

Before LOGU E , SCALES and HENDON , JJ.2 PER CURIAM

. Appellants Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and Miami

- Dade County appeal a February 21, 2022 non

- final order denying appellants’ motions seeking summary judgment on the issue of whether the y

a re sovereignly immune from the wrongful death action brought by appell ee Odalys Fortes, as personal representative of the Estate of Annie Becerra. The challenged order also recites the legal duty that, according to the trial court, appellants owed to Ms. B ecerra. 1 We dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, that portion of the appeal seeking interlocutory review of the trial court’s order determining the legal duty appellants owed to Ms. Becerra. See 1560

- 1568 Drexel Ave., LLC v. Dalton , 323 So. 3d 273, 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (recognizing that a district court’s jurisdiction to review a portion of a non

- final order does not extend to the portion of the same order not included in rule 9.130’s schedule of reviewable

non - final orders); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). We affirm the trial court’s determination that appellants are not sovereignly immune from appellee’s claims. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Div. of Highway

1 According to the summary judgment order, appella nts “owed a common law duty to render aid to the injured victim of an accident that they are or should be aware of when they undertake to respond to and investigate the accident.”3 Patrol v. Kropff , 491 So. 2d 1252, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“A governmental entity is not immune from liability where, as in the instant case, a member of its police force fails to use reasonable care in the performance of an operational level function.”); see Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cnty. , 371 So . 2d 1010, 1021 (Fla. 1979) (“Planning level functions are generally interpreted to be those requiring basic policy decisions, while operational level functions are those that implement policy.”)

. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.52


                              [ATW LETTERHEAD]


3/30/2000

To: Roger Finchum SR


Dear Roger,

This is to confirm that the contract between ColorSmart Inc. and Chris
England for the acquisition of ATW Inc. has been extended until May/15/2000.
Please sign and fax back copy of such and send original back by FedEx mail.



/s/ Chris England
-------------------------------------
(Signature) seller


3/30/2000
-------------------------------------
(Date)


/s/ Roger Finchum
-------------------------------------
(Signature) purchaser


3/30/2000
-------------------------------------
(Date)



Best Regards,
Chris England


ATW/Advertising That Works
PROB 12A

(04/02)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Report on Offender Under Supervision

Name of Offender: Hai Manh Do Case Number: 11-cr-00422-REB-02

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: Robert E. Blackburn

Date of Original Sentence: March 28, 2013

Original Offense: Manufacture & Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Aid & Abet Same

Date Supervision Commenced: March 28, 2013 Date Supervision Expires: March 27, 2017

Report on Conduct and Condition of Offender and Proposed Action

The purpose of this report is to request approval for the defendant to travel to Ho Chi Minh City,

Vietnam. As a basis for this request, the following supervision adjustment summary is provided:

The defendant has been cooperative and compliant with his conditions of supervision. The defendant

is employed as a machinist for Ragsdale Industries in Englewood, Colorado. He lives alone and has

maintained a stable residence. He has paid the $2,500 fine and $100 special assessment in full. 

The defendant recently submitted a request for permission to travel in order to marry a 30-year-old

woman, Pham Thi Ngoc Sang, in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The defendant plans to fly to Vietnam

and, if granted permission, intends to leave March 1 and return March 22, 2014. He stated that his

wedding date will be March 8, 2014, and he intends to travel with his mother, younger brother, sister-inlaw and cousin. The defendant submitted a travel itinerary, which includes his future wife’s address and

contact telephone number. Based on the defendant’s favorable compliance while on supervision, I do

not object to the defendant’s planned travel to Vietnam.

Assistant U.S. Attorney M. J. Menendez was contacted and informed that she has no objection to the

defendant’s travel request. Based on the aforementioned, it is respectfully requested that the Court

approve the defendant’s travel request.

Respectfully submitted, Approved:

s/Sergio Garza s/ Gary W. Phillips

Sergio Garza Gary W. Phillips

Probation Officer Supervising Probation Officer

Date: December 10, 2013

X I Concur with the Proposed Action

G Submit a Request for Modification of the Condition(s) of Supervision

G Submit a Request for Warrant or Summons

G Schedule a Compliance Review Hearing

G Other: s/ Robert E. Blackburn

Signature of Judicial Officer

December 13, 2013

Date

Case 1:11-cr-00422-REB Document 249 Filed 12/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.5 Net Increase in Liabilities and Its Relation to Net Acquisition of Financial Assets** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24536]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Contract 1 Negotiated Service 
Agreements

AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Postal Service notice of filing a request with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission to add Priority Mail Contract 1 to the list of 
Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's 
Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).

DATES: October 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Reiter, 202-268-2999

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that on September 23, 2008, it filed with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal 
Service to Add Priority Mail Contract to Competitive Product List and 
Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not Of General 
Applicability. Documents are available at http://www.prc.gov, Docket 
Nos. MC2008-8, CP2008-26.

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. E8-24536 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Rosa WARNER, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Florida, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Mabry A. Carlton, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of the Attorney General.
* 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. 96-40081 Conference Calendar

__________________ MITCHELL TEMPLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JUAN GARZA; SARGENT GUTIERREZ, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-L-93-121
- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mitchell Templeton, a Texas state prisoner (#331690), appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. He argues that the district court should not have dismissed his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim as frivolous because the court found that the Webb County Detention Center did not have adequate library facilities. The district court held that Templeton failed to allege any legal prejudice asNo. 96-40081 -2- a result of the deficient library facilities, thus his claim lacked an arguable basis in law. See Lewis v. Casey , 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). To the extent that Templeton attempts to allege legal prejudice for the first time in his reply brief, we decline to review these allegations. We have reviewed the record and perceive no abuse of discretion by the district court and thus no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                        Jan-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                          Sep-30-1995

<CASH>                                         47
<SECURITIES>                                    5
<RECEIVABLES>                                3026
<ALLOWANCES>                                  313
<INVENTORY>                                  6121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9329
<PP&E>                                       4933
<DEPRECIATION>                               2579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3658
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       37
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12944
<SALES>                                      4494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4494
<CGS>                                        3416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             82                     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (151)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.04)