alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.0

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
Slippery Rock Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Slippery Rock
Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of September 30, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three and
nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, and the consolidated
statement of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and
2001, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders' equity for the
nine-month period ended September 30, 2002. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated February 8, 2002 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
Wexford, PA
November 1, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEN XING CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 71112

Agency No. A087

- 610

- 379

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Fen Xing Chen , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 71112

review for substantial evidence the agency’ s factual findings, applying the

standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID

Act. Shrestha v. Holder

, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA found Chen not credible based on an inconsistency between his

testimony and application as to his continued practice of Falun Gong in China after

his arrest, the omission from his application that police had come to his hom e six

times after he left China, and the IJ’s negative demeanor finding. Substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048

(adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). I n

the ab sence of credible testimony, Chen’ s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft

, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.0 - Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                              Three Months      Six Months   
                                                 Ended             Ended     
                                                6/30/97           6/30/97    
                                              ------------      ----------   
<S>                                            <C>              <C>          
     Net Income                                $1,153,011       $2,231,649   
                                               ==========       ==========   
                                                                             
     Weighted average shares outstanding        2,474,391        2,520,152   
                                                                             
     Common stock equivalents due to                                         
      dilutive effect of stock options            210,555          206,769   
                                               ----------       ----------   
     Total weighted average common shares                                    
      and equivalents outstanding               2,684,946        2,726,921   
                                               ==========       ==========   
                                                                             
     Primary earnings per share                $     0.43       $     0.82   
                                               ==========       ==========   
     Total weighted average common shares                                    
      and equivalents outstanding for                                        
      primary computation                       2,684,946        2,726,921   
                                                                             
     Additional dilutive shares using the                                    
      end of period market value versus                                      
      the average market value when                                          
      applying the treasury stock method            9,827 *         13,613 * 
                                               ----------       ----------   
     Total weighted average common shares                                    
      and equivalents outstanding for                                        
      fully diluted computation                 2,694,773        2,740,534   
                                               ==========       ==========   
                                                                             
     Fully diluted earnings per share          $     0.43       $     0.81   
                                               ==========       ==========    
</TABLE>

* If average share price is greater than ending price, the average price for
  both primary and fully diluted is used for the calculation.
# 16SNR04_00

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5129 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5129

  For the relief of Thomas W. Sikes and Wellington Trade, Inc., doing 
                      business as Containerhouse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2004

 Mr. Norwood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Thomas W. Sikes and Wellington Trade, Inc., doing 
                      business as Containerhouse.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of 
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $990,500, to the 
persons named in subsection (b) for damages sustained by such persons 
in connection with a 1991 government contract for the purchase and 
delivery of certain ocean freight containers.
    (b) Persons to Receive Compensation.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
shall compensate the following persons under subsection (a):
            (1) Thomas W. Sikes of Cadwell, Georgia.
            (2) Wellington Trade Inc., of Cornelia, Georgia, doing 
        business as Containerhouse.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    Payment under section 1 shall constitute full settlement of all 
legal and equitable claims by the persons named in section 1(b) against 
the United States for the damages described in section 1(a).

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY AND AGENT FEES.

    Not more than 10 percent of the payment made under section 1 may be 
paid to or received by an agent or attorney as consideration for any 
service rendered in connection with this Act. Each violation of this 
section is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.
                                 <all>
```
Cite as 2014 Ark. 339

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-14-485

BENJAMIN OLIVER

 PETITIONER

V.

RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

 RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered July 31, 2014

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED

APPEAL OF ORDER

[LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.

39CV-13-4]

HONORABLE L.T. SIMES, JUDGE

MOTION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

In 2013, petitioner Benjamin Oliver filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the circuit court in Lee County where he is incarcerated.1

 The circuit court denied the petition. 

No appeal was taken, and petitioner now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal. 

Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 4(a) (2013) requires that a notice of appeal

be filed within thirty days of the date an order is entered. Petitioner contends that he did not

file a timely notice of appeal because he was not promptly notified by the circuit clerk that the

order had been entered. 

A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief, which

includes the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sillivan v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 88 (per

curiam); McDaniel v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 107 (per curiam); Wesley v. Harmon, 2010 Ark. 21 (per

1As of the date of this opinion, petitioner remains incarcerated at the prison facility in Lee

County.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 339

curiam); McClain v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 428 (per curiam). If the petitioner fails to file a timely

notice of appeal, a belated appeal will not be allowed absent a showing by the petitioner of good

cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. McDaniel, 2013 Ark. 107; Wesley, 2010

Ark. 21; Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per curiam).

Even if the order was not promptly forwarded to petitioner, that fact in itself does not

constitute good cause for petitioner’s failure to follow procedure. In contrast to the denial of

a petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2013),2

there is no absolute duty imposed in the statute on a judge or clerk to notify a petitioner that a

petition for writ of habeas corpus has been denied. Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; McClain, 2009 Ark.

428; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006).

Our law imposes a duty on lawyers and litigants to exercise reasonable diligence to keep

up with the status of cases. Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; McClain, 2009 Ark. 428. The pro se litigant

receives no special consideration in this regard. Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; see also Tarry v. State, 346

Ark. 267, 57 S.W.3d 163 (2001) (per curiam). It is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, or

anyone other than the party desiring to appeal, to perfect the appeal. Day v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark.

189 (per curiam). It was the duty of petitioner to file a timely notice of appeal, and he has not

established good cause for his failure to do so.

Motion denied.

Benjamin Oliver, pro se petitioner.

No response.

2Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3(d) places an obligation upon the circuit court

to promptly mail a copy of the order to the petitioner.

2
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 780

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the 

implementation of the program under section 804 of such Act, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. 

HOLDEN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. TURNER of Texas, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. MOORE, Mr. HILL, Mr. 

STENHOLM, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 

Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. FROST, and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

provide for the implementation of the program under 

section 804 of such Act, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prescription Drug 

5 Price Reduction Act’’. 
2

•HR 780 IH 

1 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 804 OF FEDERAL 

2 FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 804 of the Federal Food, 

4 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 384) is amended—

5 (1) by striking subsection (l); and 

6 (2) by redesignating subsection (m) as sub7 section (l). 

8 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Health and 

9 Human Services shall promulgate a final rule for carrying 

10 out section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

11 Act not later than one year after the date of the enactment 

12 of this Act. The effective date for such final rule may not 

13 be later than 30 days after the date on which the final 

14 rule is promulgated. 

15 (c) LABELING.—Section 502 of the Federal Food, 

16 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is amended by 

17 adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(w) If it is a covered product imported into the 

19 United States pursuant to section 804, unless, upon com20 mercial distribution of such product in the United States, 

21 the product bears labeling that identifies the country from 

22 which the product was imported, that provides the name 

23 and address of the importer of the product, and that pro24 vides the name and address of the person who exported 

25 the product to the United States.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-28-1997           DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-28-1997           SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                            7,254                 8,149
<SECURITIES>                          0                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    15,060                13,023
<ALLOWANCES>                        933                   803
<INVENTORY>                      12,818                11,764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 36,227                32,859
<PP&E>                           78,868                68,049
<DEPRECIATION>                   37,324                33,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   84,299                75,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            37,354                39,525
<BONDS>                          17,249                 8,009
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                     0
<PREFERRED>                           0                     0
<COMMON>                         22,841                26,741
<OTHER-SE>                            0                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     84,299                75,259
<SALES>                         283,371               287,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                288,073               293,993
<CGS>                           254,405               258,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   254,405               258,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    104                   426
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,108                   968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (894)                2,827
<INCOME-TAX>                        403                   402
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (1,297)                2,425
<DISCONTINUED>                        0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                     0
<CHANGES>                             0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                     (1,297)                2,425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.34)                 0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.34)                 0.63
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit (3)(b)

(a) EXHIBITS

        (3)(b) Amendments to Restated Articles

        Section A of Article FIFTH of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of
the Corporation was amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

        FIFTH: A. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
Company shall have authority to issue is 1,125,000,000 consisting of: (1)
25,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $1.00 per share ("Preferred
Stock"); and (2) 1,100,000,000 shares of Common Stock, Par value $1.00 per
share ("Common Stock").
#### In the Matter of Jonathan Brown, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 740]

After petitioner was identified as being a member of a gang and having slashed another inmate with a folded can top, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assault, possession of a weapon and unauthorized organizational activity. At the conclusion of the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all three charges. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of the determination.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, together with the extensive hearing testimony, comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Yancey v Conway,*46 AD3d 1042 [2007]). Regarding petitioner’s denial of the allegations against him, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see *Matter of Johnson v Goord,*46 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2007]). As for petitioner’s claim that he was denied the right to present witness testimony from another inmate, it is unpreserved for our review given petitioner’s failure to object at the hearing (see *Matter of Toledo v Selsky,*12 AD3d 824, 825 [2004]) and, in any event, is without merit inasmuch as the inmate stated on the record in petitioner’s presence that he was unwilling to testify because he had no knowledge of the matter (see *Matter of Williams v Goord,*242 AD2d 842, 842 [1997]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been examined and found to be unavailing.

Carpinello, *J.P., Rose,*Kane, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.24

 

PCM, Inc.

Summary of Executive Salary and Bonus Arrangements

 

The table below summarizes the current annual salary and bonus arrangements we have with each of our current executive officers. All of the compensation arrangements we have with our executive officers, including with respect to annual salaries and bonuses, are reviewed and may be modified from time to time by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.

 

We have written employment arrangements with each of our executive officers, and a copy of each such employment arrangement is filed as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K. The non-salary and bonus components of our compensation arrangements with our executive officers, including with respect to severance, option grants and other benefits, are described in those respective agreements. Our executive officers participated in executive bonus plans during fiscal year 2012 adopted by the Board of Directors on March 14, 2012, descriptions of which are included in Exhibit 10.34 in this Form 10-K, and are expected to participate in executive bonus plans for 2013, which are currently being established by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.

 

Additional information regarding our compensation arrangements with our executive officers will be included in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed in connection with our 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

	
Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
Annual
   Base Salary
    	
 
    	
Bonus
    	
 
    
	
Frank F. Khulusi
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
833,000
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(1)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Brandon H. LaVerne
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant   Secretary 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
317,500
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(1)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Robert I. Newton
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and   Secretary 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
317,500
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(1)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Oren J. Hartman
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Executive Vice President—Corporate Sales 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
317,500
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(1) (2)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Simon M. Abuyounes 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
President — PCM Logistics, LLC 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
317,500
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(1)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Joseph B. Hayek
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
President—PCM Sales, Inc. 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
317,500
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(1)
    




 








(1)  All executives are eligible to participate in our executive bonus plans referenced above.

(2)  Mr. Hartman joined the Company on December 3, 2012.