alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit99.3**

 

Report of IndependentAccountants

 

Board of Directors

Harley-Davidson Credit Corp.

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying  “Management’s Report onInternal Control Over the Servicing and Preparation of Monthly Servicer’sCertificates “ that Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. maintained effective internalcontrol over the servicing requirements identified  in Article V, and the reportingrequirements identified in Article IX of the Sales and Servicing Agreement(the “Servicing Agreement”), dated as of May 1, 2004 between Harley-DavidsonMotorcycle Trust 2004-2, as Issuer, Harley-Davidson Customer Funding Corp., asTrust Depositor, Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., as Servicer and BNY MidwestTrust Company as Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2004,based on criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issuedby the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.Harley-Davidson Credit Corp.’s management is responsible for maintainingeffective internal control over the servicing requirements and the reportingrequirements identified in the Servicing Agreement. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of the internal control overthe servicing requirements and reporting requirements identified in theServicing Agreement, testing and evaluating the design and operatingeffectiveness of the internal control, and performing such other procedures aswe considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatementsdue to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of theinternal control over the servicing requirements and reporting requirementsidentified in the Servicing Agreement relative to future periods are subject tothe risk that the internal controls may become inadequate because of changes inconditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or proceduresmay deteriorate.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the management ofHarley-Davidson Credit Corp. maintained effective internal control over theservicing requirements and reporting requirements of the Servicing Agreement asof December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects, based oncriteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by theCommittee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

 
|   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|

 

January 14, 2005

 

----
#### Wade H. Moore *v.*John Jackson's Heirs.

Pleading — Reply, When Not Necessary.

Where the answer in an action relating to real estate is in effect a denial of the allegations of the petition and is made a counterclaim for the purpose of recovering for the surplus land in the event the sale is adjudged to have been by the acre, there is no necessity for any .response to it, since the facts, alleged in the answer are controverted by the petition.

APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT 'COURT.

December 22, 1872.

*Hays, for appellant.*

*Noble, for appellees.'*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The original sale of the land by Jackson to Moore was a sale in gross, and the sale by Moore to. Jackson was by the acre. The deeds from1 one to the other evidence this fact, and in the present suit, although Jackson in his answer insists that his original sale was by the acre, still he is contradicted by the deed itself and in the absence of an allegation of fraud or mistake in its execution sustained by proof its express stipulations can not be altered or reformed. The answer is; in effect only a denial of the allegations of the petition- and is made a counter claim for the purpose of recovering from, the appellees for the surplus land in the event it is adjudged that the sale was by the acre. There was no necessity for any response to it — the facts alleged in the answer were controverted by the statements of the petition. See *Davis v. Lyons, 7*Bush 4. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to award to the appellant the land in controversy, or if the appellee should elect to take it, a right that should not be denied them, it must be subjected to the payment of the purchase money.

Judge Hardin not sitting.
Via Metropolitan /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 24, 2014

No. 04-13-00549-CV

Ernest MUNGIA,

Appellant

v.

VIA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 380931

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to file Motion for Rehearing and 

Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is GRANTED. Time is extended to May 23, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0001121 

02-JUN-2017 

01:35 PM 

SCWC-12-0001121 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

RAYMOND S. DAVIS,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-12-0001121; CASE NO. 1DTA-12-01623) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

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

Upon consideration of Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant 

Raymond S. Davis’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 25, 

2017, the papers in support thereof, and the records and files 

herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 2, 2017. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Florida

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international 

system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and demonstrated 

suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

Mass Echelon II

10 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb, 500 lb 

25 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

500 kg, 250 kg

30 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts 

5000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Transfer, II

1500 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal, 25 gal 

(Rev.: February 2020)

NOTE: Amended 2023-01-31 to increase 

ranges of Mass Echelon II and Mass Echelon III 

2022 to 2023

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2022-02-01 to 2024-02-01
#### W. B. McGehee *v.*O. W. Miles et al.

. Courts — Jurisdiction—Transfer of Case.

Where the trial of exceptions to reports of settlements of the accounts of executors was transferred from the county court to the circuit court by direction of the parties, the circuit court had only the jurisdiction of the county court over the subject-matter.

*471-Executors and Administrators — Personal Judgment.

Where the Court of Appeals reversed a judgment and remanded the case for correction of settlements of executors, so as to hold 'the executors liable for the price of a slave, it was held that such- decision did not authorize a personal judgment against the executors;

APPEAL FROM FULTON -CIRCUIT COURT.

February 15, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The original controversy between Ropen’s widow and heirs and Miles and McGehee, was not a suit against the latter to recover the ■amount due from them as executors of A. I. Ropen, deceased, but ■simply the trial of exceptions to the reports of settlements of the accounts of the executors, in which, in effect, they were not charged with the price of the slave, “Link.” That controversy being by agreement transferred to the circuit court, the latter tribunal, chosen ■ by the parties themselves, had only the jurisdiction of the county court over the subject-matter.

It confirmed the reports, and this court, on appeal, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a correction of the settlements , so as to hold the executors liable for the price of Link. This did not authorize the personal judgment against the executors, which had ■ not been sought in either court in any action. The court, therefore, transcended its jurisdiction in reducing that judgment and its action to that extent was void, it being -only authorized to correct the .settlements in accordance with the opinion of this court, and remand the matter to the county court, which may yet, and should be done, in order that the corrected settlements may, as such, be available to the appellees in an action against the executors. Whether or not the appellant might have maintained his action for protection and relief against the misappropriation of the money paid by Miles, as well as for adjudication of the question of relative responsibility, for the price of “Link” between him and Miles, is not now to be decided, but he was certainly entitled to have his injunction perpetuated ■ 1 as to the judgment and execution against him, but without prejudice to the rights of the appellees according to the former decision of this court, properly carried into effect, and when properly sought to be enforced.

*472
      *Kingman, for appellant.*

*Randle, Tyler, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the further proceedings consistent to this opinion.
SUBROUTINE EXPCDF(X,CDF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION
C              WITH MEAN = 1 AND STANDARD DEVIATION = 1.
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION IS DEFINED FOR ALL NON-NEGATIVE X,
C              AND HAS THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = EXP(-X).
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--X      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE AT
C                                WHICH THE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--CDF    = THE SINGLE PRECISION CUMULATIVE
C                                DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
C             FUNCTION VALUE CDF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--X SHOULD BE NON-NEGATIVE.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--EXP.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--1, 1970, PAGES 207-232.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(X.LT.0.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,4)
      WRITE(IPR,46)X
      CDF=0.0
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    4 FORMAT(1H , 96H***** NON-FATAL DIAGNOSTIC--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUME
     1NT TO THE EXPCDF SUBROUTINE IS NEGATIVE *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      CDF=1.0-EXP(-X)
C
      RETURN
      END
Case: 1:20-cr-00369 Document #: 67 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:410
#### THE STATE ex rel. v. WILSON, Collector, v. MINERS BANK OF JOPLIN, Appellant.

In Banc,

March 23, 1904.

TAXATION: Assessment Against Bank. The assessment of personal taxes should he against the stockholders of the hank and not against the hank itself.

Anneal from Jasper Circuit Court. — *Hon. Jos. D.*Perkins, Judge.

Reversed.

ROBINSON, C. J.

Action by plaintiff as collector of tbe revenue of Jasper county against defendant, tbe Miners Bank of Joplin, to collect personal taxes to tbe amount of $1,351.28, claimed to be due to tbe State and county for tbe year 1901, on account of an assessment *2against its shares of stock that were listed by defendant’s chief officer and delivered to the assessor for taxation as required by law.

At the hearing before the circuit court, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the taxes claimed, and the case is brought here on defendant’s appeal.

In so far as the case need be considered here, it is in all its essential features like the companion case with which it was argued in this court, State ex rel. Wilson v. First National Bank of Carterville, 180 Mo. 717, and upon the authority of that case, and for the reasons given therein, the judgment of the circuit court herein will be reversed, and it is so ordered.

*Marshall, Gantt, Burgess, Valliant*and *Fox, JJ.,*concur; *Brace, J.,*dissents.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


United Companies Financial Corporation:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim consolidated
financial information of United Companies Financial Corporation and subsidiaries
for the periods ended March 31, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated
May 8, 1998; 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, 1998, is being
incorporated by reference in the following: Registration Statement No. 33- 17366
on Form S-8 pertaining to the United Companies Financial Corporation Employees'
Savings Plan and Trust, Registration Statement No. 33-29994 on Form S-8
pertaining to the 1989 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1989 Non-Employee Director
Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement No. 33-54955 on Form S-8 pertaining to
the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1993 Non-Employee Director Stock Option
Plan, Registration Statement No. 33-68626 on Form S-3 pertaining to the
registration of 1,951,204 shares of United Companies Financial Corporation
Common Stock, Registration Statement No. 33-60367 on Form S-3 pertaining to the
registration of $200 million of United Companies Financial Corporation Debt
Securities and Preferred Stock, Registration Statement No. 33-52739 on Form S-3
pertaining to the registration of 200,000 shares of United Companies Financial
Corporation Common Stock, Registration Statement No. 33-63069 on Form S-8
pertaining to the United Companies Financial Corporation Management Incentive
Plan, Registration Statement No. 333-21985 on Form S-3 pertaining to the
registration of $500 million of United Companies Financial Corporation Debt
Securities, Preferred Stock and Common Stock and Registration Statement No.
333-33347 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Incentive Compensation
Plan and the 1996 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.

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 the Act.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Baton Rouge, Louisiana
May 8, 1998
Exhibit 10.2

*ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company*

909 Locust Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50309

 

Original #1 of 2

 

GUARANTEED FUNDING AGREEMENT

(Non-Participating)

 

| CONTRACT NO. | IUS0296 |
|--------------|---------|

 

| OWNER: | Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc. |
|--------|---------------------------------|

 

| STATE OF DELIVERY: | Connecticut |
|--------------------|-------------|

 

| EFFECTIVE DATE: | August 10, 2007 |
|-----------------|-----------------|

 

| EXPIRATION DATE: | August 10, 2012 |
|------------------|-----------------|

 

| SINGLE DEPOSIT: | $500,000,000.00 |
|-----------------|-----------------|

 

 

ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company ("Insurance Company") agrees in consideration of its receipt of the Single Deposit, and subject to the conditions and provisions of this Contract, to pay the Contract Payments specified herein.

 

The conditions and provisions set out on the attached pages form a part of this Contract as fully as if stated over the signatures below.

 

Entered into as of the Effective Date:

 

| **LION CONNECTICUT HOLDINGS, INC.**

                                                        | **ING USA ANNUITY AND**

**LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY**

  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:  /s/ David Pendergrass 

 

 

Title:  Vice President, Treasurer 

  | /s/                                                         | Harry N. Stout

President | /s/ | Joy N. Benner

Secretary |
|                                                                                              | By:                                                         | /s/ Brant Thurston

Sr. Director of Operations, ING Institutional Markets |

 

**This is a Guaranteed Funding Agreement issued from the Insurance Company's general account.  Interest is accrued throughout the life of the Contract on its current value at the Credited Interest Rate provided for in Schedule A of this Contract.  The Single Deposit is returned and accrued interest is paid to the Owner, without adjustment, in scheduled Contract Payments as described in Schedule A.**

 

|  | 1 |  |
|--|---|--|

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69423-69424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27653]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-109-2014]


Approval of Subzone Status; General Electric Company; Decatur, 
Alabama

    On August 25, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade 
Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Huntsville-
Madison County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 83, requesting subzone 
status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 83 on behalf of 
General Electric Company in Decatur, Alabama.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (79 FR 51545-51546, 8/29/2014). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed 
the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.

[[Page 69424]]

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive 
Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 
83D is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 83's 2,000-acre 
activation limit.

    Dated: November 17, 2014.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27653 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4012 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4012

    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
  permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition 
             assistance programs established under the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2004

 Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia (for himself and Ms. Norton) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
  permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition 
             assistance programs established under the Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38--2702(i), D.C. Official 
Code) is amended by striking ``each of the five succeeding fiscal 
years'' and inserting ``each succeeding fiscal year''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38--
2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of the five 
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each succeeding fiscal 
year''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.2    THE SERVICER OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE



MEMBERS EQUITY PTY LIMITED (MORTGAGE MANAGER) OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Members Equity Pty Limited,
as Mortgage Manager (the "Mortgage Manager"), pursuant to the agreement entitled
"Mortgage  Origination and Management  Agreement"  dated 4 July 1994 (as novated
and  amended)  between  Perpetual  Trustees  Australia  Limited,   ME  Portfolio
Management  Limited and Members  Equity Pty  Limited,  (the  "Agreement"),  does
hereby certify that:

1.   Capitalized  terms used but not defined in this Officer's  Certificate have
     their  respective  meanings set forth in the Agreement,  unless the context
     requires   otherwise  or  unless   otherwise   defined  in  the   Officer's
     Certificate.

2.   As of the date of this Officer's Certificate, Members Equity Pty Limited is
     the Mortgage Manager of SMHL Global Fund No. 3 (the "Trust").

3.   This Officer's Certificate is delivered pursuant to the Agreement.

4.   A review of the activities of the Mortgage Manager during the calendar year
     ended June 30, 2004 and of its performance  under the pooling and servicing
     agreement or similar agreements was made under my supervision.

5.   Based on such review,  to my knowledge,  the Mortgage Manager has fulfilled
     its  obligations  under the  pooling  and  servicing  agreement  or similar
     agreements relating to the Trust (including the Agreement)  throughout such
     calendar year and, except as set forth in paragraph 6 below.

6.   The following is a description of any exceptions to paragraph 5 above:- No
     significant deficiencies were detected.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of the Mortgage
Manager,  has  duly  executed  this  Officer's  Certificate  this  24th  day  of
September, 2004.


MEMBERS EQUITY PTY LIMITED,
as Mortgage Manager


   /S/ N. VAMVAKAS
-------------------------------------

Name:   N. VAMVAKAS
Title:  Director