alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

Santa Fe Gaming Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada

We have made a review, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting
and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of Santa Fe Gaming
Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended December 31, 1996 and 1995,
as indicated in our report dated February 13, 1997; 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 December 31, 1996 is
incorporated by reference In Registration Statement No. 33-44700 on Form S-8 and
in post-effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form
S-8.

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 that act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



Las Vegas, Nevada
February 13, 1997

                                      22
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES ACT
RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Income Properties IV;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 13, 2006
    
    /s/ Steven L. Brake

Steven L. BrakeTreasurer
PGI 246.103 Contracting office responsibilities.       (2)(i)  In preparing instructions for Government inspections, the technical activity shall consider, as applicable—          (A)  The past quality history of the contractor;          (B)  The criticality of the material procured in relation to its intended use, considering factors such as—          *(1)*  Reliability;          *(2)*  Safety;          *(3)*  Interchangeability; and          *(4)*  Maintainability;          (C)  Problems encountered in the development of the material;          (D)  Problems encountered in other procurements of the same or similar material;          (E)  Available feedback data from contract administration, receiving, testing, or using activities; and          (F)  The experience of other contractors in overcoming manufacturing problems.          (ii)  The instructions shall—          (A)  Be kept to a minimum;          (B)  Ensure that the activities requested are in direct relation to contract quality requirements to serve as objective evidence of quality conformance; and          (C)  Be prepared on a contract-by-contract basis.          (iii)  The instructions shall not—          (A)  Serve as a substitute for incomplete contract quality requirements;          (B)  Impose greater inspection requirements than are in the contract;          (C)  Use broad or general designations such as—          *(1)*  All requirements;          *(2)*  All characteristics; or          *(3)*  All characteristics in the classification of defects;          (D)  Be used for routine administrative procedures; or          (E)  Specify continued inspection requirements when statistically sound sampling will provide an adequate degree of protection.          (iv)  After issuing the instructions, the technical activity must—          (A)  Provide the contract administration office with available information regarding those factors that resulted in the requirement for Government inspection;          (B)  Periodically analyze the need to continue, change, or discontinue the instructions; and          (C)  Advise the contract administration office of the results of the periodic analyses.    **Parent topic:** PGI 246.1 -GENERAL
#### BAER v. GREAT EASTERN CASUALTY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1915.)

Action by Simon Baer against the Great Eastern Casualty Company.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1102.
§ 95.17 Processing facility clearance. ( a ) Following the receipt of an acceptable request for facility clearance, the NRC will either accept an existing facility clearance granted by a current CSA and authorize possession of license or certificate related classified information, or process the facility for a facility clearance. Processing will include— ( 1 ) A determination based on review and approval of a Standard Practice Procedures Plan that granting of the Facility Clearance would not be inconsistent with the national interest, including a finding that the facility is not under foreign ownership, control, or influence to such a degree that a determination could not be made. An NRC finding of foreign ownership, control, or influence is based on factors concerning the foreign intelligence threat, risk of unauthorized technology transfer, type and sensitivity of the information that requires protection, the extent of foreign influence, record of compliance with pertinent laws, and the nature of international security and information exchange agreements. The licensee, certificate holder, or other person must advise the NRC within 30 days of any significant events or changes that may affect its status concerning foreign ownership, control, or influence (e.g., changes in ownership; changes that affect the company's answers to original FOCI questions; indebtedness; and changes in the required form that identifies owners, officers, directors, and executive personnel).
( 2 ) An acceptable security review conducted by the NRC;
( 3 ) Submitting key management personnel for personnel clearances (PCLs); and
( 4 ) Appointing a U.S. citizen employee as the facility security officer.
( b ) An interim Facility Clearance may be granted by the CSA on a temporary basis pending completion of the full investigative requirements.
[62 FR 17692, Apr. 11, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 15650, Apr. 1, 1999]
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Butte County Air Quality Management District

Rule No(s): 434 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: Adopted April 25, 2013

Rule Title(s): Emissions Statements

Date Submitted to ARB: June 14, 2013

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): __________________

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No ( If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Armen Kamian, Associate AQ Planner Phone Number: 530-332-9400, x108

E-mail Address: akamian@bcaqmd.org

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Rule 434 establishes emissions reporting requirements from specified stationary sources in accordance with the

requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act, Section 182(a)(3)(B).

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, w ill result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach referenc e(s) for emission factor(s)

and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: ______________________________________

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: Area Affected:

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure:

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure:

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any):

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed):

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 T PY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: 4

Percent in Nonattainment Area: %

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: 0 Percent in Nonattainment Area: %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as

necessary) :

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Sectio n(s) of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): Work Practice Standards in Section(s): _____

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): 3 Reporting Requirements in Section(s): 4CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002 3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion: This Rule formalizes the District's current r equirements for certification of its existing inventory program.
#### In re BOARD OF SUP’RS OF CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1915.)

In the matter of the application of the Board of Supervisors of Chautauqua County for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain the compensation to be paid to Catherine Gens for land taken for highway purposes.

No opinion. Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs.
H. Res. 6

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 4, 2005.

Resolved, That the following Members be, and are hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the House

of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. Dreier, Chairman; Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida; Mr. Hastings of Washington;

Mr. Sessions; Mr. Putnam; Mrs. Capito; Mr. Cole; and Mr.

Bishop of Utah.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dominick Dellegrazie, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed July 24, 1978. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting therefrom the provision that “payment of restitution and the fine are to be completed within 90 days”. As so modified sentence affirmed, the defendant is directed to pay the balance due in 10 equal monthly installments, and the matter is remitted to Criminal Term to fix the amount of each installment and dates on which they are to be paid. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Land, Respondent, v. Dudley Lumber Company et al., Appellants, and Lawless Bros. Paper Mills, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the Dudley Lumber Company, employer, and its insurance carrier from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 24, 1968 and May 21, 1968, awarding compensation to the claimant. The right of the claimant to compensation benefits and the amount thereof are not in issue upon this appeal. The claimant suffered an industrial accident in 1959 to his back while employed by Lawless Bros. Paper Mills, Inc. Claimant *978was employed by the appellant employer from April 15, 1965 to May 8, 1965 and his employment involved the lifting of heavy timber (150 pounds) about once or twice a week. The board found that “such lifting caused a further weakening of claimant’s already weakened back and constitutes an accidental injury ”. The appellants contend that the lifting constituted only minor traumas and therefore the record does not support the finding of “ accident The record does not sustain the finding of an accident, not for the reason argued by the appellants as to “ minor traumas ”, but because the medical proojc does not sustain such finding. There is no evidence, including the testimony of the claimant, that any one specific incident caused his disability. (See *Matter of Lerner*v. *Rump Bros.,*241 N. Y. 153.) The medical testimony likewise does not support such finding and is best exemplified by the claimant’s doctor when he stated: “ This man has a degenerative back and although he has no recent accident or specific injury to the back, I believe that he has suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition by the heavy lifting and bending which he was doing delivering lumber. I believe .there is causal relation therefore to his occupation.” The factual situation is similar to that found in *Matter of Bruzdowski*v. *Coleco Ind.*(30 A D 2d 886), in which awards have been reversed. The respondent’s contention that the record is sufficient to sustain a finding of “ occupational disease ” is not substantiated and, in any event, was not the finding of the board. Decisions reversed, with costs to appellants, and matter remitted to the board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. 'Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr. and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                          12,578
<SECURITIES>                    9,544
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                22,122
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  29,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,962,790
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        2,899
<OTHER-SE>                      (1,935,945)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    29,744
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                76
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                22,351
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (22,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (5,569)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (16,706)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (16,706)
<EPS-BASIC>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Wateek Folk, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 811]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Clemente, J.), entered June 24, 2004 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While in the infirmary, petitioner repeatedly refused orders by correction officers to surrender his cigarette lighter before returning to the dormitory area. Instead, he proceeded to walk toward this area until the door was locked and his entry was prevented. As a result of this incident, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, violating facility movement regulations and possessing authorized articles in an unauthorized area. Petitioner was found guilty of all charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal, although the penalty was modified. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court annulled that portion of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing an authorized item in an unauthorized area and otherwise confirmed and dismissed the petition. Respondents thereafter expunged said finding of guilt from petitioner’s institutional record in accordance with the court’s decision.

Inasmuch as that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing an authorized item in an unauthorized area has, in fact, been administratively reversed and expunged from petitioner’s institutional record, it is unnecessary to address petitioner’s arguments in that regard. Turning to his remaining claims, we find no merit to petitioner’s assertion that a meaningful effort was not made to locate an inmate witness he sought to have testify at the hearing. The record discloses that petitioner was unable to accurately identify this inmate and that the hearing officer was also unable to do so even though he adjourned the hearing and contacted the infirmary to attempt to ascertain the individual’s identity. Insofar as the hearing officer took reasonable steps to locate the witness, petition*1183er’s due process rights were not violated *(see e.g. Matter of Vizcaino v Selsky,*26 AD3d 574, 575 [2006]). Finally, despite petitioner’s claim, there is nothing to indicate that the hearing officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Quezada v Goord,*19 AD3d 964, 965 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Her cure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 221 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 25
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 221

                          [Report No. 115-56]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2017

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported through the legislative day of March 27, 2017.
    Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the calendar day 
of March 26, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or 
his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on 
the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
section.
                                                  House Calendar No. 25

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 221

                          [Report No. 115-56]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 22, 2017

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gerald H. Bass, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 23, 1980, which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, filed October 25, 1979, charging claimant with an overpayment of $2,683.75 in benefits, ruled to be recoverable. On August 14, 1980 the board rescinded the above decision upon application of the Industrial Commissioner. The appeal has, therefore, been rendered academic. Appeal dismissed, with costs to claimant. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
§ 75.23 Operating records. The operating records required by § 75.21 shall include, as appropriate, for each IAEA material balance area: ( a ) Those operating data which are used to establish changes in the quantities and composition of nuclear material;
( b ) The data obtained from the calibration of tanks and instruments and from sampling and analyses, the procedures employed to control the quality of measurements, and the derived estimates of random and systematic error;
( c ) A description of the sequence of the actions taken in preparing for, and in taking, a physical inventory, to ensure that it is correct and complete; and
( d ) A description of the actions taken to ascertain the magnitude and cause of any accidental or unmeasured loss that might occur.