alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT99**

**HERITAGE OAKS TO ACQUIRE FOURWESTAMERICA BRANCHES, REPORTS SECOND QUARTER EARNINGS.**

Paso Robles,CA, July 17, - Heritage Oaks Bank today announced that it will purchase fourbranches in San Luis Obispo County from Westamerica Bank. The branches arelocated in Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay. Thepurchase is subject to regulatory approval and is expected to close in thefourth quarter of 2001.

Larry Ward,President and Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bank stated, “We arevery pleased with this agreement to acquire these branches. The addition of thenew offices will add to our current coverage within the County, by adding toour deposit totals. This transaction will also afford us the opportunity toprovide service to our existing customers by adding these new branches. We arealso pleased that we will be given the opportunity to enhance our staff withthe addition of the employees of these offices.”

Through thefirst six months of the year, ending June 30, 2001 Heritage Oaks Bancorp, (TheCompany) parent holding company of Heritage Oaks Bank, reported net income of$1,115,114, or $0.79 per share on a fully diluted basis. This represents a7.27% increase in net income over the same reporting period, June 30, 2000. TheCompany reported a Return on Equity (ROE) and a Return on Average Assets (ROAA)of 16.40% and 1.22% respectively on June 30, 2001.

Mr. Ward wenton to state “the Company’s results of operations through the first six monthsof 2001 continue to demonstrate strong positive trends in total asset growth,capital adequacy and earnings performance.”

Through June30, 2001, the Company reported Total Assets of $189,891,264. This figurerepresents a 9.63% growth in assets over the same reporting period of June 30,2000. Loans increased by over 13% during the past year and deposits increasedby more that 10%, with non-interest bearing demand deposits leading the way at20% growth. As a result of strong earnings, and the payment of a 5% stockdividend in April 2001, total Equity Capital increased by 25.7% to $14,726,852.
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forthe National Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. TheCompany has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performedby it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 5, 2018

t1128

Order 

Clerk

December 5, 2018

158396

In re PAROLE OF FREDERICK WILKINS _________________________________________

MONROE COUNTY PROSECUTING

ATTORNEY,

Appellee,

v SC: 158396

COA: 344426 

Monroe CC: 18-140703-AP

FREDERICK WILKINS,

Appellee, 

and

PAROLE BOARD,

Intervenor-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 1, 2018 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted, and we DIRECT that court to decide this case on an 

expedited basis.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPR-17-0000100 

17-MAR-2017 

01:34 PM 

SCPR-17-0000100
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

IN RE MARGARET E. REFORD, Petitioner.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of Petitioner Margaret Elizabeth 

Reford’s petition to resign and surrender her license to practice 

law in the State of Hawai'i, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the 

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH), and of 

the affidavits and exhibits in support thereof, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. 


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),
 

that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and
 

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).
 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the
 

name of Petitioner Margaret Elizabeth Reford, attorney number
 

6395, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai'i,
 

effective with the filing of this order.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 17, 2017. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
#### Tony Lee ASHLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-6722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2011.

Tony Lee Ashley, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tony Lee Ashley, challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Based upon the portions of the record that the trial court attached to its order, summary denial as to grounds one and three was proper. However, as the State acknowledged in its response to this Court’s *Toler*order, the trial court failed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims made in ground two of the motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting ground two or for an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

WOLF, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 741 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a permanent 

extension of the enforcement instruction on Medicare supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in critical access and small 

rural hospitals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Ms. JENKINS of Kansas (for herself, Mr. LOEBSACK, and Mr. SMITH of Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for a permanent extension of the enforcement instruction 

on Medicare supervision requirements for outpatient 

therapeutic services in critical access and small rural 

hospitals. 

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 ‘‘Rural Hospital Regu5 latory Relief Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 741 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT IN2 STRUCTION ON MEDICARE SUPERVISION RE3 QUIREMENTS FOR OUTPATIENT THERA4 PEUTIC SERVICES IN CRITICAL ACCESS AND 

5 SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834 of the Social Secu7 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(t) PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT IN10 STRUCTION ON SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR OUT11 PATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN CRITICAL ACCESS

12 AND SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS.—On and after January 

13 1, 2017, the Secretary shall continue to apply the enforce14 ment instruction described in the notice of the Centers for 

15 Medicare & Medicaid Services entitled ‘Enforcement In16 struction on Supervision Requirements for Outpatient 

17 Therapeutic Services in Critical Access and Small Rural 

18 Hospitals for CY 2013’, dated November 1, 2012 (pro19 viding for an exception to the restatement and clarification 

20 under the final rulemaking changes to the Medicare hos21 pital outpatient prospective payment system and calendar 

22 year 2009 payment rates (published in the Federal Reg23 ister on November 18, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 68702 through 

24 68704) with respect to requirements for direct supervision 

25 by physicians for therapeutic hospital outpatient services), 

26 as previously extended under section 1 of Public Law 113– 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 741 IH

1 198, as amended by section 1 of Public Law 114–112 and 

2 section 16004(a) of the 21st Century Cures Act (Public 

3 Law 114–255).’’. 

4 (b) REPEAL OF REQUIRED REPORT.—Section 16004 

5 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Public Law 114–255) is 

6 amended by striking subsection (b). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
302 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Charley Lookhart 

State Treasurer 

Austin, Texas 

Doar Sir: ' opinion 

Your letter of U asking ;ohat 

iled to you for 

tinistrator of 

ou;;t the $lG.20 

the county tour 

wver th2 estato 

.whether tha adcollect or acquestim uhether 

8 any $wisdifASon 

nty Court rendered in Deoems dministrator, to close the 

d renit the balance of the 

surer, to be held in the estate 

ue the court Pound in his judgment the 

that was or would bo left to be $222.79, 

s mistrrksn bdcauee the additional $10.26 

the administrator. In order to open up 

aore thsn the 

by the court in 

r to send 011 the 

s our B.uIment, 

and we acbise that you put this $10.26 in the estate fund in 

the wn;8 of the at Burke estate, and send the adndnistrator 

your receipt therefore 
Honorable Charley Lockhart 0 page 2 

Ii znd then any one olaks thie estate, the 

record ai:1 show the total amount pai?i, anil ther3 will 

be no dii%oulty in having ~the oourt at that time enter 

th:, proper order ralative to you p*n:: 901313 to tho 

Fopor oimor. 

Xe are returnins you herevlth the oopy of tie 

judgment retiered Ln the Burke eetote, which you atfrched to your letter, ulth the request that same be returned. 

ATTOffiim G3lWlAL OF Ti.$XAS 

GENEXAL GM. Y. Baroue 

Assistant 

snclomre
#### William HASHEM, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 28, 2010.

*763William Hashem, pro se, Petitioner.

Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel, Sheron Wells, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We hereby grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The circuit court shall rule on the pending petition for writ of mandamus within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days from issuance of mandate in this cause. Because we are confident that the circuit court will issue a ruling, we withhold issuance of the formal writ.

PETITION GRANTED.

WEBSTER, HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBIN HEAD , ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. 23

- 01 82 3 (UNA) ) U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT , ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and h er pro se complaint

. The Court will grant the application and , for the reasons discussed below, dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

The C ourt must construe a pro se complaint liberally , keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But e ven a pro se litigant must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint

contain a sh ort and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. B rown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).2 Plaintiff, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, “would like to know how [she] can access” financial assistance through “Federal Covid Relief Funding” programs. Compl. at 1. Although

she received “3 stim ulus checks,” she alleges “they ere taken by 3 permanent rent increases ” and other expenses. Id . Plaintiff complains that she is “surrounded by new high end cars, BMW, Lexus, Teslas, etc.” purchased by other individuals who received alternative forms of assistance during the pandemic, yet she faces eviction and remains “under siege by the very act of the National Emergency Proclamation of 2019[.]” Id . She demands “back pay plus damages” to address her financial situation and “psychological abuses.” Id

. Missing, however, is a statement that plaintiff is entitled to the relief she demands. The complaint raises questions and expresses plaintiff’s frustration at benefits awarded to others yet does not state whether plaintiff herself is qualified for or entitled to receive further benefits, or whether such benefits still are available. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standards of Rule 8(a).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: July 17, 2023 TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000921450
<NAME> THE QUANTUM GROUP INC. AND SUSBIDIARIES
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          76,776
<SECURITIES>                                    50,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  710,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,238,966
<PP&E>                                         145,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,937,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          704,288
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,403
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,227,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,937,735
<SALES>                                        500,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          400,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (135,681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (135,681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1997 (unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the six months ended June 30, 1997 (unaudited) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,778
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,768
<PP&E>                                       1,576,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                 132,423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,548,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,579
<BONDS>                                        830,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                     581,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,548,743
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,673
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,504
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
**
**Exhibit 13.1**

**Certification by the Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Takeshi Idezawa, Chief Executive Officer of LINE Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 
 • 
the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2018, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A and as further amended by Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A (the“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 
 • 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. 

Date: September 27, 2019 

 

By:
 
/s/ Takeshi Idezawa
 
Name: Takeshi Idezawa
 
Title: Chief Executive Officer
**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Glen CONNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6577.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 28, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

John Glen Conner, pro se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.

*119Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Glen Conner appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Conner,*Nos. CR-96-142; CA-99-207-3-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as "filed” on February 10, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 14, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. *See Wilson v. Murray,*806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.1986).
Exhibit 15.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-203384 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 29, 2015, relating to the financial statements of Check-Cap Ltd. (the “Company”)  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014.
 
 /s/Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.
 Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.
 Certified Public Accountants
 A Member Firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
 
 Tel Aviv, Israel
 April 29, 2015