alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

Independent Accountants' Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures

The Board of Directors
Prime Receivables Corporation:

We have applied certain agreed-upon procedures, as discussed below, to the accounting records of Prime Receivables Corporation ("Prime"), a wholly-owned special-purpose finance subsidiary of Federated Department Stores, Inc. ("Federated"), relating to the servicing procedures performed by FDS Bank, as Servicer, under the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated December 15, 1992 between Prime, as Transferor, Federated and JPMorgan Chase Bank, successor to Chemical Bank, as Trustee, on behalf of the Certificateholders of Prime Credit Card Master Trust and under the Assumption Agreement dated September 15, 1993 between Prime, Federated, FDS Bank and JPMorgan Chase Bank, successor to Chemical Bank. Prime's management is responsible for the monthly certificates prepared by the Servicer. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no representations regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows:

- In accordance with section 3.06(b) of the Agreement, we recalculated or compared each amount set forth in items (i) through (xvii) of each monthly certificate prepared by the Servicer, pursuant to section 3.04(c) of the Agreement, during the period from February 2, 2003 to January 31, 2004, (the "Certificates") from information in the Transferor's computer generated Daily Cash Allocation Reports, the Agreement, the Series 1992-3 Supplement to the Agreement dated December 31, 1992 or the Series 2000-1 Supplement to the Agreement dated December 7, 2000, as appropriate. We found such recalculated or compared amounts to be in agreement with the amounts set forth in items (i) through (xvii) of the Certificates. Such recalculated or compared amounts are deemed to be in agreement if any differences noted are immaterial.



We were not engaged to, and did not conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the Certificates. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for your information and is not intended to be and should not be referred to or distributed for any purpose to anyone other than JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Corporation, as the Rating Agencies, Investor Certificateholders or the management of Prime.







KPMG LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
April 22, 2004
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-86,762-02

EX P ARTE LOUIS ADAMCAUDILL, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 11627-B IN THE 115T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM UP SHUR COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indece ncy with a child and se ntence d to six year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. In three g rounds, Applicant contends that trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance

. The trial court held a live evidentiar y hear i n g, m ad e finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, and

rec ommended that we set aside Applicant’s conviction. We believe that the rec ord should be further develope d and that the trial court should make finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law on whe ther Applicant’s c laims should be barre d by the doctrine of lac hes.2

In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The tri al court shall g ive Applicant an opportunity to respond and explain his delay in raising his ineffe ctive as s i s t an ce o f counsel claims. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. Applicant appea

rs to be repr esente d by counsel. I f he is not and the trial court elec ts to hold another hearing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent him at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. After revie wing Applicant’s response , if any , the trial c ourt shall make further finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s claims should be barr ed by the doctrine of lache s. The trial court shall als o m ak e any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claims for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplement al t ranscript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time must be reque sted by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Apr il 11, 2018 Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6488]


In the Matter of the Review of the Designations of Al-Qa'ida 
(AQ), Haraket-ul-Mujahidin (HUM), Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine (PFLP), and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and All 
Designated Aliases, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations Pursuant to 
Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Records assembled in this 
matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA'') , and in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 
2003 re-designations of the aforementioned organizations as foreign 
terrorist organizations have not changed in such a manner as to warrant 
revocation of the designations and that the national security of the 
United States does not warrant a revocation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designations of the 
aforementioned organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 9, 2009.
John D. Negroponte,
Deputy Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-1221 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Sterling K. Ainsworth and Gordon H. Link, Jr.,
and each of them, his or her attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution,
for him or her in any and all capacities, to sign an annual report on Form 10K
for the year ending December 31, 1996 and the associated 1997 Proxy to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), and all
amendments (including post-effective amendments) thereto, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Commission; granting unto said attorneys-in-fact full power and authority to
perform any other act on behalf of the undersigned required to be done in the
premises, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

<TABLE>
<S>                          <C>
Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Sterling K. Ainsworth
                             Sterling K. Ainsworth


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Leonard P. Shaykin
                             Leonard P. Shaykin


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Gordon H. Link, Jr.
                             Gordon H. Link, Jr.


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ E. Garrett Bewkes, Jr.
                             E. Garrett Bewkes, Jr.


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Phillip Frost
                             Phillip Frost


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.
                             Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Patricia A. Pilia
                             Patricia A. Pilia


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Vaughn D. Bryson
                             Vaughn D. Bryson


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Arthur H. Hayes, Jr.
                             Arthur H. Hayes, Jr.


Date:  March 31, 1997        /s/ Mark B. Hacken
                             Mark B. Hacken

</TABLE>
Order entered June 2 8 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00498
- CR
BRADRICK JERMAINE CO LLINS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the C ounty Criminal Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA17
- 18552
- F



### O RDER This appeal is REINSTATED

. On May 31, 2018, the Court entered an order abating this case to the trial court for findings of fact regarding whether an interlock devic e had been placed in appellant’s vehicle as a condition of community supervision or as a condition of appellant’s appeal bond. The trial court has filed the necessary findings. Because the trial court has found that the interlock device was placed as a co ndition of appellant’s appeal bond, we need not reconsider our May 31, 2018 order dismissing for want of jurisdiction appellant’s May 29, 2018 emergency motion requesting removal of interlock device.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### David AMBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; John Jabe, Deputy Director of Operations Virginia Department of Correc*315tions; Larry Huffman, Regional Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Larry W. Jarvis, Warden of Bland Correctional Center; Virginia Bandy, Institutional Operations Administrator of Bland Correctional Center; Correctional Officer Doe, Bland Correctional Center; Jane Doe, Correctional Officer Bland Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-6664.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

David Amberger, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.*

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*

 The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).

PER CURIAM:

David Amberger appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Amberger’s motion to file supplemental pleadings and documents, deny Amberger’s motion for the appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a temporary restraining order, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Amberger v. Johnson,*No. 7:06-cv-00162-jlk (W.D.Va. Apr. 3, 2006). 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.*
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  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 QuantRx Biomedical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sasha Afanassiev, 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 to my knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.


                              /s/ Sasha Afanassiev
                              -------------------------------
                                  Sasha Afanassiev
                                  Chief Financial Officer

Date:    November 14, 2006


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.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

September 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20031

Summary Calendar

BERNARD H. GLATZER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK; MARIAN B. GLATZER;

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES;

MARLENE THOMASON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-4471

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bernard H. Glatzer appeals from the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants conspired to

deprive him of his parental rights. Glatzer alleged that Thomason,

while acting as a temporary judge, conspired with his ex-wife and

issued without jurisdi ction an order in California proceedings

affecting custody and child support. He further alleged that the

defendants improperly seized his assets in New York based on the1 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

2 Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). order. Glatzer sought damages and an injunction to stay separate

proceedings that he initiated in New York state court. The

district court dismissed the suit under the R ooker-Feldman 1

doctrine as a collateral attack on the California order. In the

alternative, to the extent that state court proceedings were still

pending, the district court dismissed the suit based on the

Younger 2 abstention doctrine.

Glatzer argues that the district court’s application of

the Rooker-Feld man doctrine was erroneous because the California

order was jurisdictionally void and his claims are based on the

defendants’ independent constitutional violations. We conclude

after reviewing the record and the briefs that Glatzer’s claims are

inextricably intertwine d with the state court order and the

district court did not err. S ee United States v. Shepherd

, 23 F.3d

923, 924 (5 th Cir. 1994); L iedtke v. State Bar of Texas

, 18 F.3d

315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Glatzer also argues that the district

court erroneously applied the Younger abs tention doctrine. We

conclude, however, that the district court’s alternative ruling was

correct. S ee Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.

, 481 U.S. 1, 14 (1987);

Wightman v. Texas Supreme Court

, 84 F.3d 188, 189 (5th Cir. 1996).

Thomason's motion to file a sur-reply brief and Glatzer’s motion to

file a sur-sur-reply brief are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED

.
Exhibit 31.2I, John A. Betts, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004of Centrue Financial Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; and3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.        Date:  May 11, 2006 /s/ John A. Betts   John A. Betts   Corporate Controller and Interim PrincipalFinancial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2721 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2721

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Ethene, tetrafluoro-
         oxidized, polymerized reduced, methyl esters, reduced.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

Mr. Lautenberg introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Ethene, tetrafluoro-
         oxidized, polymerized reduced, methyl esters, reduced.

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

SECTION 1. ETHENE, TETRAFLUORO-OXIDIZED, POLYMERIZED REDUCED, METHYL 
              ESTERS, REDUCED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.19 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 1205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-440-000]


Madison Paper Industries; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

January 5, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Madison Paper Industries' application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 27, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c5a594e5f5372707572794f696c6c736e685c7a796e7f327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="377172657478595b5e595264424747584543775152455419505841">[email protected]</span></a>, 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-252 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>