alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

**AWARENESS LETTER OF DELOITTE &TOUCHE**

 

 

 

May 14, 2002

 

ESG Re Limited

Skandia International House

16 Church Street

Hamilton, Bermuda

 

 

We have made a review, in accordance withstandards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of ESG Re Limitedand subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2002 and 2001, as indicated inour report dated May 14, 2002; because we did not perform an audit, weexpressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred toabove, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2002 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No.333-40107 on Form S-8, in Registration Statement No. 333-76983 on Form S-3 andRegistration Statement No. 333-32302 on Form S-8.

 

We are also aware that the aforementionedreport, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is notconsidered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by anaccountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within themeaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| Deloitte & Touche     |
| Dublin, Ireland           |

 

 

----
4823-1445-3753.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FREDY SOSA, individually, and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ONFIDO, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04247 

Hon. Marvin E. Aspen 

DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant, Onfido, Inc. (“Onfido”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff Fredy Sosa’s claims in his Class 

Action Complaint (Doc. 1-1) (“Complaint”) with prejudice for failure to state a claim for four 

independent reasons. First, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 

14/1 et seq., expressly states that photographs and information derived from photographs are not 

covered by the statute. Second, Plaintiff does not state a claim for $5,000 in liquidated damages 

because Plaintiff does not plead facts from which to reasonably infer that Onfido intentionally or 

recklessly violated BIPA. Third, Plaintiff does not state a claim for $1,000 in liquidated damages 

because Plaintiff does not plead facts from which to reasonably infer that Onfido negligently 

violated BIPA. Fourth, BIPA is an unconstitutional restraint on speech in violation of the First 

Amendment. Support for this motion is found in the accompanying memorandum of law. 

Dated: September 15, 2021 ONFIDO, INC. 

 By: /s/ Bonnie Keane DelGobbo 

Bonnie Keane DelGobbo 

(bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com) 

Amy L. Lenz 

(alenz@bakerlaw.com) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 45 Filed: 09/15/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:512
2 

4823-1445-3753.1

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606-2841 

Telephone: (312) 416-6200 

Joel Griswold 

(jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 

Orlando, Florida 32801-3432 

Telephone: (407) 649-4088 

Counsel for Defendant 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 45 Filed: 09/15/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:513
3 

4823-1445-3753.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she filed and served the foregoing document 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of the filing to all counsel of record. 

Parties may access the filing through the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Bonnie Keane DelGobbo 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 45 Filed: 09/15/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:514
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 15, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 15, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A14D0423. HUGO LACASIDON v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

89R083
Filed 12/20/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 210

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Brian Shermer, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20050066

Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ladd R. Erickson, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 1108, Washburn, ND 58577- 1108, for plaintiff and appellee.

Todd A. Schwarz, Parkade Bldg., 2nd Fl., 515-1/2 E. Broadway, Ste. 103, Bismarck, ND 58501, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Shermer

No. 20050066

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Brian Shermer appeals from a criminal judgment and an order denying his motion to suppress evidence following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.  He argues the chain of custody was not properly established when seventeen pounds of marijuana was found in the trunk of his car.

[¶2]Shermer did not challenge the legality of the vehicle search.  See N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3).  He indicates:  “The whole issue presented to this court is a case of first impression dealing with chain of custody and whether that evidence should be admissible.”  Several North Dakota cases have previously discussed the admissibility of evidence following an alleged chain of custody violation.  See, e.g., State v. Huffman, 542 N.W.2d 718, 721 (N.D. 1996); State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d 191, 196 (N.D. 1989); State v. Bohe, 447 N.W.2d 277, 279 (N.D. 1989); State v. Hartsoch, 329 N.W.2d 367, 370 (N.D. 1983); State v. Skjonsby, 319 N.W.2d 764, 789 (N.D. 1982).  These cases have held:  “Any defect in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of the evidence.”  Haugen, 448 N.W.2d at 196.

[¶3]We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69117-69118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27492]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 5, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

[[Page 69118]]

    1. Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and 
Carolyn Marie Fink, as trustee, both of Metairie, Louisiana; to acquire 
additional shares of Louisiana Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire additional voting shares of Bank of New Orleans, both in 
Metairie, Louisiana.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. The Charles & Donna Moyer Irrevocable Trust; Cambell Moyer, 
individually and as trustee; Melynda Moyer, Emily Moyer Jasnowski, and 
Tess Moyer, all of Aurora, Nebraska; Steve Arnett and Maggie Arnett, 
both of Wood River, Nebraska; Scott Moyer, San Francisco, California; 
Tom Moyer, Arvada, Colorado; Andrew Moyer and Alexa Moyer, both of 
Omaha, Nebraska; Chris Moyer, Pasadena, California; Steve Moyer, New 
York, New York; Michelle Moyer, Brooklyn, New York; Eleanor Jane Moyer, 
Grand Island, Nebraska; and Judy Moyer, Sun City West, Arizona; all as 
members of the Moyer Family Group, to retain voting shares of Heritage 
Group, Inc., Aurora, Nebraska, and thereby indirectly retain voting 
shares of Heritage Bank, Wood River, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 17, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-27492 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                           SECTION 135O CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Futures Investments L.P. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), I,
Patrick Hayward, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ PATRICK HAYWARD
   -------------------
Patrick Hayward
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert G. Hunter, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| |  | /s/ROBERT G. HUNTERInterim Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 13, 2003
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Robert Blodgett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





(1)
       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and,





(2)
       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.




By:
            /s/Robert
                M. Blodgett
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              Date:
                 December 28, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,585,691              21,143,346
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,585,691              21,143,346
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     299,812                 116,083
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,285,879              21,027,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,585,691              21,143,346
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0                (805,663)
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                 0                 205,043
<COMMISSIONS>                                        0                 361,536
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   23,801                 745,337
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,801                (216,819)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      23,801                (216,819)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,801                (216,819)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28                   (2.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28                   (2.08)



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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,267
<INVENTORY>                                     79,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,430
<PP&E>                                         328,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,162
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 715,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,708
<BONDS>                                        508,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,836
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   715,290
<SALES>                                        298,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               298,245
<CGS>                                          249,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  276,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,220
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,882
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Central National Bank of Danville *v.*J. B. Bailey.

Executions — Sheriff—Levy—Mistake As to Quantity of Land Levied On : — Good Faith.

As the law does not furnish the sheriff with the power or the means to go on land upon which he may levy and make surveys thereof, he must act on the best information he can otherwise obtain, and when he has done so he cannot be made responsible for the mistake of others.

*187APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 14, 1871.

*Durham & Jacobs, for appellant.*

*Hill & Alcorn, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

From the facts agreed in this case, it appears -.that the sheriff was informed by an old survey of the land that the tract contained forty-five acres, and he was also informed by Norman, the principal in the debt, that there were forty-five acres of the land and that this information was in good, faith, and upon which he had a right to rely — and if it had contained the quantity as represented, the property levied on would have been more than sufficient to pay appellant’s debt.

As the law does not furnish the sheriff with the power, or the means to go on lands upon which he may levy and make surveys thereof, he must act on the 'best and most reliable information that he can otherwise obtain as to such matters, and when he has done so, he cannot be made responsible for the mistakes of others.

Judgment affirmed.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1: 20-cv-04806

Judge Honorable Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

DEFENDANT GAODESHANGUS’S STATEMENT 

PURSUANT TO COURT’S APRIL 06, 2022 ORDER AND LOCAL RULE 3.2 

Pursuant to Court’s April 06, 2022 Order (Dkt. 518) and Local Rule 3.2, Defendant 

GaodeshangUS (“Defendant” or “GaodeshangUS”), through counsel, submits the following statements: 

1. Defendant’s corporate name is Anhui Gaodeshang Jiaoyu Keji Co., Ltd., (Anhui Gaodeshang 

Education Technology Co., Ltd.). See Business License with English Translation attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1. 

2. Defendant is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Hefei, China on March 12, 2020. 

3. Defendant’s legal representative is Liu Yu. 

4. Defendant’s business address is 1115 Tower Office, Investment Innovation Center, Intersection of 

Chuanxin Avenue and Changjiang West Road, Gaoxin District, Hefei, Anhui. 

5. As of April 27, 2022, there is no affiliates owning 5% or more of Defendant. 

6. Defendant never had contractual relationship with any other remaining defendants. 

Date: April 27, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted: 

/s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju 

Iris.Ju@glacier.law 

He Cheng 

Robin.Cheng@glacier.law 

Tao Liu 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 525 Filed: 04/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:13746
2 

Tao.Liu@glacier.law 

Glacier Law LLP 

200 Park Avenue, Suite 1703 

New York, NY 10166 

(332) 208-8882 

Attorneys for Defendant

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 525 Filed: 04/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:13747
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this April 27, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing file with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record and 

interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 4/27/2022 

 

/s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 525 Filed: 04/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:13748
#### COMMISSIONER OF LABOR v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS

No. 504PA96

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 349

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 June 1997. Motion by Attorney General to dismiss petition for discretionary review denied 5 June 1997.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp. (the
Company), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ Patrick McGarey    
|                      |  |  |  | Patrick McGarey        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
10308

#### James *v.*The State.

Decided April 4, 1919.

Broyles, P. J.

1. It being shown upon the hearing of the defendant’s motion for a continuance, based upon the absence of a material witness for the defense, that the witness was beyond the jurisdiction of the court (in the United States army in France), and had not been subpoenaed, the court did not err in overruling the motion. Penal Code (1910), § 987; *Boyd*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App.*162 (86 S. E. 411); *Minder*v. *State,*113 *Ga.*772 (39 S. E. 284). This is true although the defendant stated that he expected to have the witness at the next term of the court, it not being shown that the witness had promised to attend or that there was any other ground for this expectation. *Woolfolk*v. *State,*85 *Ga.*69 (4) (11 S. E. 814) ; *Owens*v. *State,*110 *Ga.*292 (34 S. E: 1015).

2. The fact that one of the jurors had been a member of the grand jury that found the bill against the defendant is not cause for a new trial. The defendant and his counsel, by due diligence, could have discovered this fact before the jury was empanelled. Britt; v. *State,*112 *Ga. 583 (37*S. E. 886).

3. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*

*535Indictment for violation of liquor law; from Houston superior court—Judge Mathews. December 6, 1918.

*R. N.*Holtzclaw, for plaintiff in error.

*John P.*Ross, *solicitor-general,*contra.