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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23(iii)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Pharmacia Corporation's (Pharmacia)Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 which is incorporated by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Pfizer Inc. dated December 18, 2003, of our report dated November 1, 2002 (November 15, 2002 as to Note 24) on the consolidated financial statements of Monsanto Company and subsidiaries as of August 13, 2002 and for the period from January 1, 2002 to August 13, 2002; and of our report dated February 5, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101, *Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements*, in 2000), on the consolidated financial statements of Monsanto Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and for each of the two yearsin the period ended December 31, 2001.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
December 18, 2003
```
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 4
- 00 600
- CR
ROBERT FRANKLIN THOM AS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial Distri ct Court Dallas Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 13
- 61531
- W



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown Opinion b y Justice Fillmore
Robert Franklin Thomas waived a jury and pleaded guilty to robbery

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 29.02(a) (West 2011)

. The trial court assessed punishment at eighteen years’ imprisonment

. On appeal, Thomas’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 73 8 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Thomas

. See Kelly- 2

- v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts
and counsel in Anders cases).
Thomas filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief,
Thomas’s pro se respo nse, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support th e appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47
140600F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

ROBERT FRANKLIN THOM AS , Appel lant
No. 05

- 14

- 00600

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 61531

- W). Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered March 27, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2773 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2773

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize veterans who are 
  totally disabled as the result of a service-connected disability to 
 travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent 
 as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such 
                               aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1993

 Mr. Montgomery (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize veterans who are 
  totally disabled as the result of a service-connected disability to 
 travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent 
 as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such 
                               aircraft.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 157 of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:
``Sec. 2643. Travel privileges on military aircraft: totally disabled 
              veterans
    ``(a) A veteran who is entitled to compensation from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs for a service-connected disability rated total in 
degree by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is entitled, in the same 
manner and to the same extent as retired members of the armed forces, 
to travel on a space-available basis on unscheduled military flights 
within the continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights 
operated by the Military Airlift Command.
    ``(b) In this section, the term `veteran' has the meaning given 
that term in section 101(2) of title 38.''.
    Sec. 2. The table of section at the beginning of chapter 157 of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item:

``2643. Travel privileges on military aircraft: totally disabled 
                            veterans.''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          75,159
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    354,226
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          29,457
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            29,160
<LOANS>                                        859,286
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (13,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,374,930
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,188,061
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,784
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,221
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,826
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,374,930
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 40,784
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,738
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   516
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                53,038
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,851
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,096
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           39,942
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 28,346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,363
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      20,363
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,204
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,616
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,978
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,532
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,105
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      574
<RECOVERIES>                                       369
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 99

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of KS
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated:   March 27, 2003                   /s/ Harold T. Keen
                                          -----------------------
                                          Harold T. Keen
                                          Chief Executive Officer

Dated:   March 27, 2003                   /s/ Earl W. Worley, Jr.
                                          -----------------------
                                          Earl W. Worley, Jr.
                                          Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC01-56-001]


Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

March 1, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 23, 2001, pursuant to Section 203 of 
the Federal Power Act and Part 33 of the Commission's regulations, 
Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc. (MLCS) filed an Amendment to the 
Application for approval of the disposition of MLCS's jurisdictional 
facilities to Allegheny Energy Global Markets, LLC (Allegheny Global) 
and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Supply). The 
Amendment was filed to reflect Allegheny Supply as a possible recipient 
of some or all of MLCS's wholesale electric power supply agreements.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest 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). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before March 8, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5525 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit15.1**

** **

 

 

 

** **

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-174558) and on Form S-8 (No.333-171280) of our report dated March 27, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Exceed Company Ltd. and itssubsidiaries (collectively the “Company”), which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

/s/Crowe Horwath (HK) CPA Limited

HongKong, China

March27, 2013
Exhibit 34.1.6.1

[Letterhead of Ernst & Young LLP]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Board of Directors

SunTrust Bank.

 

We have examined management’s assertion included in the accompanying report of Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that SunTrust Bank (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Refer to management’s assertion for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

March 6, 2008
FACT SHEET │ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Federal Interest 

Rate Authority

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published a proposed rule to clarify the law 

governing the interest rates state banks may charge.

ADDRESSES MARKETPLACE UNCERTAINTY: The proposal would address marketplace 

uncertainty regarding the enforceability of the interest rate terms of loan agreements following a 

bank’s assignment of a loan to a non-bank.

In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision 

(Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC) that called into question such enforceability by 

holding that 12 U.S.C. §85 – which authorizes national banks to charge interest at the rate 

permitted by the law of the state in which the bank is located, regardless of other states’ 

interest rate restrictions – does not apply following assignment of a loan to a non-bank. 

This decision created legal uncertainty and a lack of uniformity in secondary credit 

markets.

o Although the decision concerned a loan made by a national bank, the statutory provision 

governing state banks’ authority with respect to interest rates is patterned after and 

interpreted in the same manner.

o The proposal would provide that whether interest on a loan is permissible under Section 

27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act would be determined at the time the loan is 

made, and interest on a loan permissible under Section 27 would not be affected by 

subsequent events, such as a change in state law, a change in the relevant commercial 

paper rate, or the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.

PROMOTES SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS: The proposal would promote safety and 

soundness by upholding longstanding principles regarding the ability of banks to sell loans.

o Among other things, loan sales enable state banks to increase their liquidity in a crisis, 

meet unusual deposit withdrawal demands, pay unexpected debts, and make additional 

loans.

o Although the proposal does not address which entity is the “true lender” when a state 

bank makes a loan and assigns it to a third party, the proposal states that the FDIC views 

unfavorably entities that partner with a state bank with the sole goal of evading a lower 

interest rate established under the law of the entity’s licensing state.

# # #
Abatement Order filed June 5, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00249-CV

____________

SONFIELD & SONFIELD, PC., ROBERT L. SONFIELD, ROBERT C. 

RHODES AND WILLIAM E. MCILWAIN, Appellants

V.

DIGERATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-06483

ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on June 3, 2013, that appellee is in bankruptcy. Tex. R. 

App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on May 30, 2013, Digerati Technologies, 

Inc., petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under case number 13-33264. 

A bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy petition is
filed until the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with federal law. 

Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.

When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or 

terminated the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. 

A party filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is 

required from this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2468]

Petition for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC., or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to this petition must be filed by March 22, 2001. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.

*Subject:*                     Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz For Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems (ET Docket No. 00-258, RM-9920, RM-9911).                

Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Concerning Implementation of WRC-2000: Review of Spectrum and Regulatory Requirements for IMT-2000.

Amendment of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations to Designate the 2500-2520/2670-2690 MHz Frequency Bands for the Mobile Satellite Service.

*Number of Petitions filed:*                     1.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-5490  Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M