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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 18

May 15, 2002

Board of Directors
Kmart Corporation
3100 W. Big Beaver Road
Troy, Michigan 48084


Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your
Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in Kmart's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 30, 2002 and issued our
report thereon dated May 15, 2002. Note 22 to the consolidated financial
statements describes a change in accounting principle from Kmart's interim
financial reporting policy reflecting use of an annualized gross margin through
estimating vendor allowances and rebates to be received during the fiscal year
and recording those amounts ratably throughout the year, to a method requiring
that cost recoveries from vendor allowances and rebates be recognized only when
a formal agreement has been obtained and the underlying activity for which the
amount was provided has been performed. It should be understood that the
preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for interim
recognition of vendor allowances and rebates has not been addressed in any
authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we
have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting
principle is preferable. Based on our reading of management's stated reasons
and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and
our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant
business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management
that such change represents, in Kmart's circumstances, the adoption of a
preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Principles Board
Opinion No. 20.


Very truly yours,


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Detroit, Michigan
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTREPID CAPITAL CORPORATION AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED. THIS INFORMATION IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001072888
<NAME> INTREPID CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         625,968
<SECURITIES>                                    85,018
<RECEIVABLES>                                  586,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    122,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,674,138
<PP&E>                                         460,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                (157,138)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,124,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,049,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,155
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,114,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,124,042
<SALES>                                      1,342,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,616,432
<CGS>                                          709,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,356,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               283,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (832,008)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   152,776
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (679,232)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (679,232)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.31)


</TABLE>
#### OHIO BRONZE POWDER CO v ALLISON etc

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9462.

Decided Jan 21, 1929

E A Binyon, Cleveland, for Powder Co.

S M Young, Cleveland, for Allison.

*232LEVINE, J.

Defendant in error relied upon the leading case in Ohio, of Bradford Glycerine Co. vs St Mary’s Woolen Mfg. Co 60 OS. 560, wherein it was held:

> “Nitroglycerine is a substance usually recognized as highly explosive and dangerous, the storage of which at any place is a constant menace to the property in that vicinity. And one who stores it on his own premises is liable for injuries caused to surrounding property by its exploding, although he neither violates any provision of the law regulating its storage, nor is chargeable with negligence contributing to the explosion.”

In the opinion of Judge Bradbury in the above case, it is stated that this rule of law is not confined to nitroglycerine and after reviewing a number of cases relating to the subject, he uses the following language:

> “The tendency of these cases is toward holding the parties charged with the management of dangerous substances to a strict liability.”

Plaintiff in error relying upon evidence adduced at the trial, contends that this rule of law applicable to dangerous substances such as nitroglycerine, is not applicable to the case at bar, because it is vigorously denied that aluminum powder is inherently dangerous.

After analysing, the argument of counsel we can hardly find that there is any difference of opinion as to the rule of law applicable to the storing of dangerous substances on one’s premises. The difference between the parties is one of evidence, as there was evidence introduced to support both the theory of defendant in error as well as the theory of plaintiff in error.

It is true that the evidence introduced by plaintiff in error was to the effect that the product is not dangerous unless it comes in contact with water after it is converted into a molten mass, by extreme heat; that only then, and not until then does it become explosive. There was also evidence introduced to the effect that the firemen who had battled the fire in the company’s plant, by pouring water upon the molten mass caused the explosion. The proof, however, submitted by defendant in error is of an entirely different character. It tends to show that the substance is inherently dangerous and that explosions will occur on premises where the substance is stored without it coming in contact with water.

The court submitted the question to the jury ,as a question of fact, whether the bronze powder was highly explosive and dangerous. The jury by returning a general verdict unquestionably supported the theory of defendant in error. The case therefore resolves itself into a question of fact only, and there being evidence to support either theory we feel ourselves bound by the finding of the jury. The judgment of the Common Pleas Court will therefore be affirmed.

Sullivan, PJ, and Vickery, J, concur.
#### § 1602.13 Records as to racial or ethnic identity of employees.

Employers may acquire the information necessary for completion of items 5 and 6 of Report EEO-1 either by visual surveys of the work force, or at their option, by the maintenance of post-employment records as to the identity of employees where the same is permitted by State law. In the latter case, however, the Commission recommends the maintenance of a permanent record as to the racial or ethnic identity of an individual for purpose of completing the report form only where the employer keeps such records separately from the employee's basic personnel form or other records available to those responsible for personnel decisions, e.g., as part of an automatic data processing system in the payroll department.

[31 FR 2833, Feb. 17, 1966]
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
#### § 18.106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements.

When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
#### § 1614.606 Joint processing and consolidation of complaints.

Complaints of discrimination filed by two or more complainants consisting of substantially similar allegations of discrimination or relating to the same matter may be consolidated by the agency or the Commission for joint processing after appropriate notification to the parties. Two or more complaints of discrimination filed by the same complainant shall be consolidated by the agency for joint processing after appropriate notification to the complainant. When a complaint has been consolidated with one or more earlier filed complaints, the agency shall complete its investigation within the earlier of 180 days after the filing of the last complaint or 360 days after the filing of the original complaint, except that the complainant may request a hearing from an administrative judge on the consolidated complaints any time after 180 days from the date of the first filed complaint. Administrative judges or the Commission may, in their discretion, consolidate two or more complaints of discrimination filed by the same complainant.

[64 FR 37661, July 12, 1999]
Order filed November 23 , 20 21

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 2 1

- 00 4 58

- CV

____________ BOBBY B. DASH , Appellant

V.
KALPESH PRAVINBHAI PATEL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 80 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 38955



### ORDER

This is a n appeal from an order denying appellant’s application for a temporary injunction

. The clerk’s record does not contain a copy of the signed order denying injunctive relief, and the trial court’s docket does not indicate such an order has been issued . Accordingly, the Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record within 7 days of the date of this order, containing a copy of the signed order denying the requ ested temporary injunction . If the case file does not contain the signed order , the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental2

clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the case file does not contain the signed order

. If this court does not receive a copy of the signed order , this appeal will be subject to dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
§ 25.613 Material strength properties and material design values. ( a ) Material strength properties must be based on enough tests of material meeting approved specifications to establish design values on a statistical basis.
( b ) Material design values must be chosen to minimize the probability of structural failures due to material variability. Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, compliance must be shown by selecting material design values which assure material strength with the following probability: ( 1 ) Where applied loads are eventually distributed through a single member within an assembly, the failure of which would result in loss of structural integrity of the component, 99 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
( 2 ) For redundant structure, in which the failure of individual elements would result in applied loads being safely distributed to other load carrying members, 90 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
( c ) The effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature and moisture, on material design values used in an essential component or structure must be considered where these effects are significant within the airplane operating envelope.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) Greater material design values may be used if a “premium selection” of the material is made in which a specimen of each individual item is tested before use to determine that the actual strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those used in design.
( f ) Other material design values may be used if approved by the Administrator.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-46, 43 FR 50595, Oct. 30, 1978; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29776, July 20, 1990; Amdt. 25-112, 68 FR 46431, Aug. 5, 2003]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4756 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to narrow the scope of the 

limitation on liability provided under section 230 of that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to narrow the 

scope of the limitation on liability provided under section 

230 of that 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 ‘‘Don’t Push My But5 tons Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON IMMUNITY. 

7 Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 

8 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4756 IS

1 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

3 other provision of this subsection, and subject 

4 to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the pro5 tection provided under paragraph (1) or (2) 

6 shall not apply with respect to a provider of an 

7 interactive computer service that— 

8 ‘‘(i) collects information regarding the 

9 habits, preferences, or beliefs of a user of 

10 the service; and 

11 ‘‘(ii) uses an automated function to 

12 deliver content to the user described in 

13 clause (i) that corresponds with the habits, 

14 preferences, or beliefs identified as a result 

15 of the action taken under that clause with 

16 respect to that user. 

17 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) 

18 shall not apply to a situation in which— 

19 ‘‘(i) a user of an interactive computer 

20 service uses an automated function to de21 liver content to that user; or 

22 ‘‘(ii) subject to subparagraph (C), a 

23 user of an interactive computer service 

24 knowingly and intentionally elects to reVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:29 Oct 17, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4756.IS S4756

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4756 IS

1 ceive the content described in subpara2 graph (A)(ii). 

3 ‘‘(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—A provider of 

4 an interactive computer service shall have the 

5 burden of proving by clear and convincing evi6 dence under subparagraph (B)(ii) that a user of 

7 the interactive computer service knowingly and 

8 intentionally elected to receive the content de9 scribed in subparagraph (A)(ii).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 93.175 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes a Special Air Traffic Rule for aircraft conducting VFR operations in the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base, AZ.
#### § 1472.625 Criminal drug statute.

*Criminal drug statute* means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance.
#### § 1471.620 Do Federal agencies coordinate suspension and debarment actions?

Yes, when more than one Federal agency has an interest in a suspension or debarment, the agencies may consider designating one agency as the lead agency for making the decision. Agencies are encouraged to establish methods and procedures for coordinating their suspension and debarment actions.
#### Wadell JOHNSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5688

477 S.W. 2d 196

Opinion delivered March 6, 1972

*Sam L. Anderson,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *John D. Bridgforth,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The trial court sitting as á jury found appellant Wadell Johnson guilty of burglary and fixed his sentence at seven years. For reversal he contends that his conviction is not supported by the evidence and that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to recall the prosecuting witness for cross-examination.

The proof on behalf of the prosecuting witness, a female age 30, was that she was asleep in her apartment *51between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. on January 18, 1970. At the time she was dressed in a night gown and underpants. She was awakened when appellant jumped in the middle of the bed straddling her. He covered her face with a housecoat and said: “Lay still and be quiet. Don’t make any noise. If you don’t, I won’t hurt you as bad. If you do, I’ll kill you.” After she turned on her stomach he cut her panties off and stuck a lighted match to her bottom. When appellant attempted to turn a radio on beside the bed, she threw the duster off her head and looked at him. Appellant then beat her on the head with a heavy object to such an extent that she was hospitalized for a week or so. After appellant jumped up and ran out the back door, she found that the locks had been pried off the back door. Witness positively identified appellant.

By Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1001 (Repl. 1964), burglary is defined as “. . . the unlawful breaking or entering a house. . . with the intent to commit any felony. ...” The foregoing evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction.

There is no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to recall the prosecuting witness for cross-examination. The trial court did permit him to call the prosecuting witness as a hostile witness. Thus he was permitted to ask the same questions that he could have asked on-cross-examination.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J., concurs.
---

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 Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Cahill, President and 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:





(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/ Michael D. CahillMichael D. CahillPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 5, 2010
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Scott  Gallagher,  certify  that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB of FTS Group, Inc.

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  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  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
subsidiary,  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;  and

c) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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;  and

b)  any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves management or other
employees  who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting.

               Date:  April 5,  2005



               /s/  Scott  Gallagher
               ______________________________________
               By:  Scott  Gallagher
               Chief  Executive  Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN HENDERSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 80 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.