alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT



Board of Directors and Stockholders

FC Banc Corp.



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp. and subsidiary
as of March 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, the consolidated statement of cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and
2003, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004. These 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 financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our
report dated January 30, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/    S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.
|                           
|                           



Wexford, PA

April 23, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Woodrow Lambert, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03930-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8836 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 1
DENY and Opinion Filed May 6 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 22
- 00268
- CV IN RE MAURICE JOEL HEROD , Relator Original Proceeding from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC
- 20
- 00470 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Partida

- Kipness, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Osborne In this original proceeding , relator seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s orders (1) denying his demand for dismissal of t he underlying termination of parental rights proceeding and (2) denying hi s motion for summary judgment. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate remedy by appe al

. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on our review of the petition and the record , we conclude that relator
ha s failed to meet his burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 52.8(a).– 2

–

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

220268f.p05 /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS / CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS

I suggest an annual retainer of $15,000.00,  which would include up to 200 hours
of my time  per  year.  Once 200  hours  have  been  consumed,  additional  time
requested and/or required will be billed at the rate of $100.00 per hour. Out of
pocket expenses on behalf of Vista Vacations will be reimbursed.

The calculation of hours will include but will not be limited to:

o    Weekly  review of travel trade press in search of  appropriate  promotional
     opportunities

o    Monthly  review  of  consumer  travel  related  publications  in  search of
     appropriate promotional opportunities

o    Time spent  preparing press releases,  writing  appropriate  Letters to the
     Editor, newsletters, articles, training manuals, curricula, etc.

o    Time spent  providing  consultation  services  to the CEO and/or  Marketing
     Director

o    Travel time when travel is required.

Accurate  records of hours spent and  activities  engaged in during  those hours
will  be  kept  and a  monthly  summary  of  "hour  balance"  remaining  will be
submitted.  If the 100 hours  covered by the annual  retainer  are  exceeded,  a
monthly statement of billable hours and an invoice for same will be submitted


                                      224
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Electrified Liquid Jets from Nanostructured Surfaces for Phase Change Heat Transfer Enhancement","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GsGvDzQHzj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/electrified-liquid-jets-from-nanostructured-surfaces-for-phase-change-heat-transfer-enhancement\/\">Electrified Liquid Jets from Nanostructured Surfaces for Phase Change Heat Transfer Enhancement<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/electrified-liquid-jets-from-nanostructured-surfaces-for-phase-change-heat-transfer-enhancement\/embed\/#?secret=GsGvDzQHzj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Electrified Liquid Jets from Nanostructured Surfaces for Phase Change Heat Transfer Enhancement” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GsGvDzQHzj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/chapman_joel.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":735}
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 11/29/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CARNELL D. BRUMFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-6026 (D.C. No. CR-95-119-M) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before PORFILIO, HOLLOWAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. Carnell D. Brumfield appeals his convictions of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Brumfield contends there was insufficient evidence identifying him as a participant. We affirm. When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. E.g. , United States v. Reece , 86 F.3d 994, 995 (10th Cir. 1996). "In order to conclude the evidence-2-

was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a conviction, we must find that no reasonable juror could have reached the disputed verdict." United States v. Ivy , 83 F.3d 1266, 1284 (10th Cir.), cert. denied117 S. Ct. 253 (1996). This court will not reverse a conviction merely because a verdict was grounded on the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator. Id . On appeal, this court may not reweigh the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Ruis-Castro , 92 F.3d 1519, 1530 (10th Cir. 1996). Brumfield does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence generally. He argues the testimony of Josue Jerome Walton, who is a confessed participant in the robbery, is not sufficiently credible. Walton's testimony that Brumfield participated in the robbery was clearly sufficient to sustain Brumfield's conviction. Walton's credibility was a question for the jury, United States v. Jaynes , 75 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996), and the jury was fully aware of his past inconsistent stories and of the terms of his plea bargain. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
#### Doe, on the Demise of Knapp and Wife, v. Pattison and Others, in Error.

*Saturday, November*27.

HELD, that, by the statute law of this state, a will, devising real estate must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two credible witnesses in presence'of the testator; and that it may, in the same manner, be revoked. *Held,*also, that a will in such a case, as well as a revocation, is valid without being'sealed (1).

(1)

 A re-hearing was grantedjn^this case j.buit the same judgment in it, as above, was afterwards rendered. The statute is now as follows:—“All devises and bequests of any lands or tenements, devisable by force of this act or any other law of this state, shall be in writing, and signed by the party so devising the same, or by some other person in his presence and by his express directions, and shall he attested and subscribed, in the presence of the said devisor, by two or more competent witnesses, or else they shall be utterly void and of no effect. ” R. C. 1831, p. 279. Such devises can only be revoked by the burning, cancelling, tearing, or obliterating of the same by the testator himself, or in his presence and by his direction and consent; or by some other will or codicil in writing, or other writing of the devisor,-.signed in the .presence of two or more competent witnesses declaring the same.—Xb. The subsequent birth of a child, if there be no provision in the will for such a contingency, operates as a revocation of the will.—Ib. p. 274.
#### Vockell et al., Appellees, *v.*Selmeier, Appellant.

(No. 6591

Decided February 4, 1946.)

*Mr. Fred W. Murphy*and *Mr. William C. Schueh,*for appellees.

*Messrs. Ratterman, Cowell S Fletcher,*for appellant.

Hildebrant, P. J.

In a forcible entry and detainer action before a justice of the peace who rendered judgment of restitution, an appeal on questions of law was *402
      *taken to the*Court of Common Pleas, where the judgment was reversed. The appeal here on questions of law attacks the legality of the appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, it being claimed there was a failure to file the notice of appeal required by law.

This court has no jurisdiction to consider the errors complained of, for the reason that under the statute no final order has been entered in the court below. Section 12223-26, General Code, provides:

“Except when the reversal is because the justice has no jurisdiction of the appellant or of the subject of the action, the cause shall be retained by the court for trial and final judgment.”

The judgment of reversal, not being for lack of jurisdiction, is, therefore, not a final order, and the cause must be retained for trial by the court below and proceed to judgment before an appeal may lie here. *McLean*v. Johnson, 20 C. C. (N. S.), 503, 31 C. D., 403; *Kelley*v. *Hunter,*12 Ohio, 216; *Longworth*v. *Sturges,*6 Ohio St., 143; *Ry. Co.*v. *Bailey,*39 Ohio St., 170; *Bradley*v. *Wacker,*13 C. C., 530, 7 C. D., 565.

The appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Hildebrant, P. J., Matthews and Ross, JJ., concur in the syllabus, opinion and judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      12,491,388
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         610,119
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  8,303,218
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,590,592
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,839,161
<LOANS>                                     55,627,768
<ALLOWANCE>                                    930,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,319,422
<DEPOSITS>                                  83,549,657
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,642,687
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,180,486
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,946,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              93,319,422
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,505,740
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,168,497
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                11,016
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,685,253
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,155,797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,212,250
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,473,003
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  164,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (16,719)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,232,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,042,796
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,261,064
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,261,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.02
<LOANS-NON>                                    864,888
<LOANS-PAST>                                    95,536
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               407,929
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 50,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               771,925
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   48,849
<RECOVERIES>                                    43,208
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              930,284
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        930,284


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

Eur-Pac Corporation 

Under Contract No. N00104-l 7-P-BA5 l et al. 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) ASBCA Nos. 61526, 61527, 61528 

) 61529,61530,61531 

) 61532,61533,61534 

) 

) 

Mr. Michael Cerulo 

President 

Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Abram D. Burnett, III, Esq. 

Associate Counsel 

Courtney C. Hatcher, Esq. 

Assistant Counsel 

NA VSUP Weapon Systems Support 

Mechanicsburg, PA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeals have been withdrawn. Accordingly, they are dismissed from the 

Board's docket with prejudice. 

Dated: January 3, 2019 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61526, 61527, 61528, 61529, 

61530, 61531, 61532, 61534, Appeals ofEur-Pac Corporation, rendered in conformance 

with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          24,073
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         116,447
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                62,488
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    133,476
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          41,050
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            50,169
<LOANS>                                      1,109,279
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,580,765
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,385,715
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             66,727
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,580,765
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,529
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,756
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,707
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,992
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,575
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,417
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,636
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,636
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,069
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.51
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,128
<LOANS-PAST>                                        93
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                10,221
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,794
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (102)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,592
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,018
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              8,574
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation

Science Mission Directorate Performance 

Under the COVID-19 Environment

2022-02-05

Name of Committee: Science Committee

Chair of Committee: Dr. Ellen Williams

Date of Council Public Deliberation: August 10, 2022

Short Title of Recommendation: Science Mission Directorate 

Performance under the COVID-19 

Environment

Recommendation: 

NASA should carry out a strategic evaluation of the Future of Work challenges following the 

major disruptions of COVID-19, in particular how they may affect retention, career 

development, and delivery of its various missions in the future, and how best to leverage a hybrid 

future that embraces the distributed nature of the science community. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

The NASA workforce has done an exceptional job executing its mission under the extraordinary 

challenges of the COVID-19 environment. There will be continuing challenges over the next 

few years in establishing the new normal balance of off-site and on-site work activity (Future of 

Work). The successful launch and deployment of the James Webb Space Telescope is a 

remarkable accomplishment under any conditions, and especially laudatory given the challenges 

of COVID-19. The demonstration of commitment and technical skill required to accomplish this 

mission will inspire future technologically challenging missions to succeed. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

If this matter is not strategically addressed, one possible consequence is that gains made in 

increasing cognitive diversity at NASA may be lost. For instance, some women or employees 

from low-income families might have a less effective work environment at home due to taking 

on additional domestic or family-support duties at the cost of scientific career opportunities, or 

alternatively might need additional flexibility in hybrid work to maintain an effective 

work/family balance. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with this recommendation. We feel there might be two evaluations requested 

here: (1) a strategic evaluation of the Future of Work challenges following the major disruptions 

of COVID-19, in particular how they may affect retention, career development, and delivery of 

its various missions in the future; and (2) how best to leverage a hybrid future that embraces 
2

the distributed nature of the science community. This request for strategic evaluations on the 

impact of COVID-19 and hybrid Future of Work environment on the science community is of 

interest not only to NASA, but the rest of the U.S. Government. As such, we feel the National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) would be the ideal organization 

to conduct these studies. We propose to inquire with NASEM within the next 30 days to see if 

any other part of the U.S. Government has already requested similar studies. If NASEM is 

already evaluating these strategic topics, we will use the results of work under way to influence 

our future plans. If NASEM is not already evaluating these strategic topics, we will work to get 

a study task in place within the next three months.