alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Exhibit 99.2 **WELLS   HOME FARGO  MORTGAGE**1 Home Campus Des Moines, IA 50328 **Assertion of Management of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells****Fargo Bank, N.A**As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Company) has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's*Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*. As of and for this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond along with an errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $100 million and $20 million, respectively. */s/ Michael J. Heid*Michael J. Heid, Division President, Capital Markets, Finance, & Administratio n  Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. February 23, 2005 */s/ Franklin R. Codel*Franklin R. Codel, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Real Estate Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. February 23, 2005 */s/ Michael Lepore*Michael Lepore, Executive Vice President, Institutional Lending Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. */s/ Mary Coffin*Mary Coffin, Executive Vice President, Servicing & Post Closing Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. February 23, 2005 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is a division of Wells Fargo Bank, NA. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 117 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 23, 1997.
    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on Wednesday, April 23, 
1997, or on Thursday, April 24, 1997, for the Speaker to entertain motions that 
the House suspend the rules. The object of any motion to suspend the rules shall 
be announced from the floor at least one hour prior to its consideration. The 
Speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee 
on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Donald H. DUKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen P. WHITE and Charles Holmes, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-3055.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 1, 1980.

Decided March 5, 1980.

David E. Murrell, Deputy Public Defender, Frankfort, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen. of Ky., Carl T. Miller, Jr., Reid C. James, Asst. Attys. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., for defendants-appellees.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and CELEBREZZE and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant in this case appeals from an order dismissing his civil rights action against the trial court judge and the commissioner of the Kentucky Bureau of Corrections. His suit sought the expungement of the record of his state felony conviction in 1970 for possession of an illegal gambling contrivance. Appellant had previously appealed his conviction to the highest court of Kentucky, where it was affirmed unanimously. *See Duke v. Commonwealth of Kentucky,*474 S.W.2d 885 (Ky.1972). There the Court of Appeals of Kentucky (then Kentucky’s highest court) held that a search of the premises of the Thoroughbred Sup*956per Club by officers of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board was authorized under Kentucky Statute KRS 241.090, even though no search warrant had been procured.

In this federal litigation, filed long after appellant had served his prison term, appellant sought to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1651 (1976); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976), and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The only relief sought was that of an injunction to require the defendants to expunge the felony conviction previously affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court on the ground that the search of the premises which had resulted in seizure of the gambling device was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This action cannot be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus since appellant was not in custody in any fashion when the complaint was filed. The right to expungement of state records is not a federal constitutional right. Neither the Legislature of Kentucky nor the Congress of the United States has seen fit to adopt expungement statutes.

The judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

BAILEY BROWN, Circuit Judge

(concurring).

I agree with the result reached in this opinion and the reasons therefor set out in the opinion. I would, however, add an additional reason. It appears to me that appellant is, in effect, seeking to use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a vehicle for making a collateral attack on a state criminal conviction, that is to say, is seeking to use § 1983 as a substitute for habeas. This, I believe, he cannot do.
Exhibit 15.37  
  May 5, 2010
  
 Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.
 5330 East 31st Street
 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
   We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, as indicated in our report dated May 5, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.
  We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-79603, No. 333-89189, No 333-33144, No. 333-33146, No. 333-50800, No. 333-128714, No. 333-152401 and No. 333-161509 on Form S-8, and No. 333-161027 on Form S-3.
  We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.
  Yours truly,
 
 /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 Tulsa, Oklahoma
#### Harty *v.*The State, in Error.

INDICTMENT. The first count, after stating *that A. B.*had committed larceny, at, &c. on, &c., charged the defendant with then and there aiding and abetting *A. B., &cc,*The second count charged the defendant as an accessory to the larceny before the fact. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment against the defendant.

*Held,*1. That the want of an averment in the indictment, that the principal had been convicted, was no ground for arresting the judgment. 2. That an accessory must be tried after the conviction of the principal, or be tried with him. 3. That if the record do not show but that the principal had been convicted before the trial of an accessory, there is no ground for the latter to object, in an appellate Court, that there had been no such conviction.

The judgment was affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 11.1

COMPUTATION
OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

|                                                                                  |                                      | Quarter Ended
June 30, |         | Six Months Ended
June 30,
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ---------------------- | ------- | -------------------------
|
|Diluted net income per share:                                                     |                                      |                        |         |                          
|                                                                                  | Net income to common Shareholders    |                        | $       | 2,586,000                
|                                                                                  | Average number of shares Outstanding |                        |         | 8,603,450                
|Net effect of dilutive stock options based on treasury stock method               |                                      |                        | 658,000 |                          
|Net effect of dilutive put option agreements based on the reverse treasury method |                                      |                        |        |                          
|                                                                                  |                                      |                        |         |                          
|                                                                                  | Total average shares                 |                        |         | 9,261,450                
|                                                                                  |                                      |                        |         |                          
|                                                                                  | Diluted net income per share         |                        | $       | 0.28                     

---

QuickLinks
H. Res. 383

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 11, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1432) to authorize a new trade and investment

policy for sub-Saharan Africa. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution

and shall not exceed two hours, with one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on International Relations and one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means
2

•HRES 383 EH

now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed

in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a

substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against

that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to

comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment

to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in

order except those printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall

not be subject to amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request

for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five

minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
3

•HRES 383 EH

on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole

to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute

made in order as original text. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
### *An official caption cont aining a complete list of parties is

on file and available for insp ection in the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. _____________ No. 95-4189WA

_____________ Robert A. Miller, et al., * * Appellees, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Arkansas. * Mrs. Joseph Orlando, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] * * Appellants. *

_____________ Submitted: July 5, 1996 Filed: November 6, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Twenty would-be intervenors appeal the district court's order d enying reconsideration of th eir petition to intervene in Tony Alamo's bankruptcy action. Having caref ully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgmentof the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6344** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, a/k/a Reginald Hilton Belton , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Winston

- Salem
. James A. Beaty, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 6:93

- cr - 00211

- WLO

- 1 )

Submitted : September 30 , 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pre cedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vance Marcel Gibson appeals the district court ’ s order s denying h is motion for a reduction of sentence filed , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (200 6 ) , and his motion for reconsideration. We hav e reviewed the record an d find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’ s order s for the reasons stated there. See United States v. Gibson , No. 6:93

- cr - 00211

- WLO

- 1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 22 & May 11, 2010). Further, we deny Gibson’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                              76,669
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      867,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        379,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,307,721
<PP&E>                                           5,858,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,808,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,099,179
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               350
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,005,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,808,058
<SALES>                                          9,210,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,210,616
<CGS>                                            6,443,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,443,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   405,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 353,948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,446,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,446,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,446,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.82)
        


</TABLE>
#### EVANS v. MacGREGOR DEVELOPMENT CO.

No. 278P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 224

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
RUSSELL GLENN BURNETT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00573

- ELH

- 1 )

Submitted : July 26, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Russell Glenn Burnett , Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Baltimore , Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6256 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Russell Glenn Burnett appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying Burnett ’s motion

. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burnett , No. 1:09

- cr - 00573

- ELH

- 1 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2021). We deny Burnett ’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal content ions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6256 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 380

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that no change in

the water level of Lake Powell is justified or appropriate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1998

Mr. CANNON (for himself, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. COOK, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr.

YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. HERGER, Mrs.

CHENOWETH, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. SALMON, Mr.

HAYWORTH, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. HILL, Mr.

SKEEN, Mr. REDMOND, Mr. STUMP, Mr. KOLBE, and Mr. SMITH of Oregon) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

no change in the water level of Lake Powell is justified

or appropriate.

Whereas Glen Canyon Dam was completed in 1963 and over

the next 14 years created Lake Powell in southern Utah

and northern Arizona;

Whereas Lake Powell is 186 miles long and has 1,960 miles

of shoreline;

Whereas Lake Powell and the surrounding Glen Canyon National Recreation Area host nearly 3,000,000 visitors annually from every State and numerous foreign countries,
2

•HRES 380 IH

and generate nearly $500,000,000 a year in tourism revenues;

Whereas more than 400,000 boat launches are made annually

on Lake Powell by recreational visitors;

Whereas the power plant at Glen Canyon Dam provides a

total output capacity of 1,288,000 kilowatts, enough electricity for more than 400,000 households, and generates

revenues of approximately $100,000,000 per year;

Whereas Lake Powell provides water for steam generation

and cooling to the Navajo Generating Station, a

2,250,000 kilowatt power plant;

Whereas Lake Powell’s waters support a diverse fishery of

striped bass, small-mouth and large-mouth bass, black

crappie, sunfish, walleye, threadfin shad, trout, and numerous other species;

Whereas numerous bird species, including the bald eagle, the

peregrine falcon, grebes, gulls, terns, and others inhabit

the Lake Powell area primarily because of the abundant

availability of fish; and

Whereas proposals are currently being made to drain Lake

Powell: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) Lake Powell is a tremendous national and

4 regional resource that provides recreational opportu5 nities, water storage, power capacity, and wildlife

6 habitat for numerous fish and bird species;

7 (2) significant changes in the water level of

8 Lake Powell would adversely affect those resources,
3

•HRES 380 IH

1 the communities surrounding Lake Powell, and

2 users of Lake Powell; and

3 (3) no change in the water level of Lake Powell

4 is justified or appropriate.

Æ