alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 18

Mr. Larry C. Miller
Vice President-Finance & CFO
Butler Manufacturing Company
BMA Tower, One Penn Valley Park
Kansas City, Missouri  64141-0917

August 9, 2001

     RE: FORM 10-Q REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2001

Dear Sir:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

We have been informed that, effective January 2001, the company changed its
method for the recognition of deferred gains and losses considered in the
calculation of the annual net pension expense for its base retirement pension
plan under SFAS 87, "Employers' Accounting for Pensions." The company has
changed from the market value method of asset valuation to the market-related
value method. Under the previous accounting method all gains and losses, subject
to a ten-percent corridor, were recognized and amortized in determining the net
periodic pension costs. The new method recognizes and amortizes 20 percent of
the cumulative investment gains or losses in determining net periodic pension
costs. The new method is preferable is a method that is commonly used by the
manufacturing sector and is preferable because it more accurately matches
expense to accounting periods for which benefits are earned and will improve
year-to-year comparability of net period costs for this plan.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

We have not audited the application of this change to the financial statements
of any period subsequent to the December 31, 2000. Further, we have not examined
and do not express any opinion with respect to your financial statements for the
six months ended June 30, 2001.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I (the Partnership) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the partnership. Date: March 25, 2005
    
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman andChief Executive OfficerDate: March 25, 2005
    
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. TerranoExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer
#### 225.7002 Restrictions on food, clothing, fabrics, hand or measuring tools, and flags.

[80 FR 51749, Aug. 26, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<CIK> 0000016104 
<NAME> CAGLE'S, INC. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997 
<CASH>                                             138 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    18279 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       519 
<INVENTORY>                                      36095 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 55545 
<PP&E>                                           98427 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   37504 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  138046 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            27074 
<BONDS>                                          45688 
<COMMON>                                          5006 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                       49473 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    138046 
<SALES>                                          86767 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 86767 
<CGS>                                            81645 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    86122 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2201) 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 977 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1869 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       699 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1170 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      1170 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23 
         

</TABLE>
Proposed False Certification Text: Unauthorized Loan

We propose the following language to address the practice of predatory institutions causing students, 

including veterans, to unknowingly authorize student loans.1 The proposed false certification langauge 

covers instances where a school signs a borrower up for a loan by using a borrower’s signature without 

the borrower’s authorization. The regulation should also cover instances where a school effectuates a 

borrower’s signing of a loan document where the borrower did not know they were signing for a loan. 

(a) Basis for discharge – 

(1) False certification...

[...]

(iii) Signed the borrower's name on the loan application or promissory note without the borrower's 

authorization or effectuated the borrower’s signature of the loan application or promissory 

note by failing to inform the borrower about the true nature of that document; 

[...]

(c) Borrower qualification for discharge...

 

(3) Unauthorized loan.

(i) In the case of a borrower requesting a discharge because the school signed the borrower's 

name on the loan application or promissory note without the borrower's authorization, the 

borrower must state that he or she did not sign the document in question or authorize the school 

to do so.

(ii) In the case of a borrower requesting a discharge because the school effectuated the 

borrower’s signature of the loan application or promissory note by failing to inform the

borrower about the true nature of the document, the borrower must state that the school 

did not inform him or her about the true nature of the document in question.

1 Veteran and Servicemember Complaints about Misconduct and Illegal Practices at ITT Technical Institute, VETERANS EDUCATION 

SUCCESS (April 22, 2020), https://vetsedsuccess.org/trends-in-veteran-and-servicemember-student-complaints-about-itt-technicalinstitute (explaining that “over one-third of students who contacted Veterans Education Success about ITT Tech complained that the 

school had taken out student loans on their behalf, often without the student’s knowledge.”).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41087

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ZACKARY ULYESSES JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CR-46-1)

July 23, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zackary Uylesses Johnson appeals the sentence impose d after his guilty-plea

conviction for possessing a controlled substance (cocaine base or crack cocaine) w ith

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Johnson contends that the district court committed clear error in its determination,

for sentencing purposes, of the amount of cocaine base involved. It is his position that

the court improperly included unseized amounts of cocaine base that, according to the

PSR, an undercover officer purportedly “felt” and concluded amounted to four ounces1 United States v. Torres , 114 F.3d 520 (5th Cir.), cert denied , 118 S.Ct. 316 (1997).

2 United States v. Gaytan , 74 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 1996).

3 See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment (n.12).

4 Torres

.

2 of the contraband.

Johnson errs. There is no such statement in the PSR, nor is there any statement

from which this reasonably might be inferred. Rather, the PSR informs that Johnson told

the undercover officer that he had “four ounces” of crack to sell.

In sentencing, the district court is to approximate the quantity of drugs not seized.

That determination is a factual finding which we review for clear error. 1 This factual call

need be supported only by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 The district court took the

four ounces of which Johnson spoke and redu ced them, using a formula reflecting the

actual amount compared to Johnson’s earlier exaggeration of transactions he m ade of

“one ounce” and “1⁄4 ounce.” 3 This reduction manifestly was in Johnson’s favor. In this

approximation we perceive neither clear error nor error. 4

Johnson’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                               E X H I B I T 2 3.2

           CONSENT OF RICHTER, USHER & VINEBERG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-5404) pertaining to the 1983 Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan
of ALPNET, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-06091) pertaining to the ALPNET, Inc. 1996 Executive Stock Option
Plan, of our Auditors' Report dated March 3, 2000 with respect to the balance
sheets of ALPNET Canada Inc. as at December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the
statements of earnings, deficit and cash flows for each of the years ended
December 31, 1999 and 1998, which we have been advised is included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ALPNET, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1999.

\s\ RICHTER, USHER & VINEBERG

Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Quebec
March 10, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended
December 30, 2007

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Shiely, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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/ John S. Shiely     
|John S. Shiely         
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 7, 2008       

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 903 

To amend the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 

2010 to extend and expand the pilot program on the use of communitybased organizations and local and State government entities to ensure 

that veterans receive care and benefits for which they are eligible, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2017 

Mr. UDALL (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health 

Services Act of 2010 to extend and expand the pilot 

program on the use of community-based organizations 

and local and State government entities to ensure that 

veterans receive care and benefits for which they are 

eligible, 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, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 903 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF PILOT PRO2 GRAM ON USE OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS 

3 AND ENTITIES TO ENSURE THAT VETERANS 

4 RECEIVE CARE AND BENEFITS FOR WHICH 

5 THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. 

6 (a) EXTENSION.—Subsection (b) of section 506 of 

7 the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act 

8 of 2010 (Public Law 111–163; 38 U.S.C. 523 note) is 

9 amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(b) DURATION OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may 

11 not carry out the pilot program after September 30, 

12 2019.’’. 

13 (b) EXPANSION OF LOCATIONS.—Subsection (c) of 

14 such section is amended by adding at the end the following 

15 new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS.—The Secretary 

17 may expand the pilot program to include additional 

18 locations if the Secretary recommends that the pilot 

19 program be expanded in the initial report submitted 

20 under subsection (g)(2)(C).’’. 

21 (c) REPORT.—Subsection (g) of such section is 

22 amended— 

23 (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘RE24 PORT ON PROGRAM’’ and inserting ‘‘REPORTS’’; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 903 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and not 

2 later than 180 days after the completion of the pilot 

3 program,’’ after ‘‘September 30, 2017,’’; and 

4 (3) in paragraph (2)— 

5 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

6 (A), by striking ‘‘The report’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘Each report’’; and 

8 (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘or 

9 expanding’’ after ‘‘continuing’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 08, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. (“Subcutaneous Drug Development &                           ( print page 7416)                        Delivery Consortium, Inc.”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Sanofi, Paris, FRANCE, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On October 26, 2020, Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 3, 2020 (85 FR 78148).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2021-01895 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD H. CARTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1762

)

COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Ronald Carter (“Carter”) has just filed a one-paragraph

Complaint that he has captioned “Subject: Sue against Cook

County Illinois,” coupling that submission with an In Forma

Pauperis Application (“Application”). Because any grant of in

forma pauperis status requires not only a showing of the

plaintiff’s inability to pay the $350 filing fee (a showing that

the Application in this case confirms) but also the assertion of

a claim that clears a comparatively low hurdle, this memorandum

order turns to the latter.

For that purpose Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972)(per curiam) teaches that nonlawyers’ pro se pleadings

should be given a generous reading. But Carter’s brief recital

does not even approach the required level of plausibility to

permit relief to be granted under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and no other

potential source of federal subject matter jurisdiction occurs to

this Court.

That being the case, the Application is denied. Carter is
granted until March 28, 2012 either to pay the filing fee or to

file an amended complaint that could pass muster as a reasonably

plausible claim--but failing either of those alternatives, this

Court will simply dismiss this action without prejudice.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 14, 2012

2
| Name of      Subsidiary                       | Jurisdiction of      Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Terabeam      International Holdings, Inc.    | Delaware                           |
| Proxim      International Operations, Inc.    | Delaware                           |
| Proxim      Professional Services, Inc.       | Delaware                           |
| Proxim      Europe B.V.                       | Netherlands                        |
| Proxim      Hong Kong Limited                 | Hong      Kong                     |
| Terabeam      Proxim Wireless Private Limited | India                              |
| Terabeam      Corporation                     | Washington                         |
| Ricochet      Networks, Inc.                  | Delaware                           |
| KarlNet,      Inc.                            | Delaware                           |
| Young      Design, Inc.                       | Virginia                           |
Program Service is under the direction of a Deputy General Counsel who reports directly to the General Counsel. The Deputy General Counsel supervises and coordinates the work of two divisions, each headed by an Assistant General Counsel and Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

The **Educational Equity Division** provides legal assistance to the Secretary in connection with the   civil rights enforcement activities of the Department pertaining to race,   national origin, sex, disability, and age discrimination. The Division provides   legal assistance to Department officials in connection with the administration   of equal educational opportunity programs, including those related to the   provision of educational and other services to persons with disabilities under   the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Rehabilitation Act of   1973. This Division also provides legal assistance for programs of educational   research and improvement and programs for limited English proficiency students   to increase their English fluency. 

The **Elementary, Secondary, Adult, and Vocational Education Division** provides legal services and advice relating to the Department’s  elementary, secondary, adult and vocational education programs, including most  of the programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the  Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, and the Adult Education and Family  Literacy Act as well as programs authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act, such as the Race to the Top programs and the State Fiscal Stabilization  Fund.