alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.1

                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


The Board of Directors
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.:

The Owners of
Bottling Group, LLC:


With respect to the  registration  statements  listed below,  we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our reports  dated April 27, 2005 related to our
reviews of The Pepsi  Bottling  Group,  Inc.  and  Bottling  Group,  LLC interim
financial information.

o      Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79357)
o      Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79369)
o      Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79375)
o      Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79365)
o      Form S-8 dated June 14, 1999                (File No. 333-80647)
o      Form S-8 dated May 8, 2001                  (File No. 333-60428)
o      Form S-8 dated September 19, 2001           (File No. 333-69622)
o      Form S-8 dated November 14, 2001            (File No. 333-73302)
o      Form S-8 dated October 28, 2002             (File No. 333-100786)
o      Form S-8 dated August 3, 2004               (File No. 333-117894)

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the  Securities  Act of 1933 (the Act),  such reports
are not considered part of a registration  statement prepared or certified by an
independent  registered public accounting firm, or reports prepared or certified
by an  independent  registered  public  accounting  firm  within the  meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 27, 2005
#### Phyllis Rae WITCHER, Admrx. of Estate of Larry Dean Witcher, Deceased v. Frank SMITH et al.

No. 49569.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 3, 1977.

Upshaw, Dale, Dorizas & Calhoun, Angelo J. Dorizas, Heber Ladner, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, John M. Roach, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Russel D. Moore, Judge.

Before ROBERTSON, SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,503, TA-W-33,503B, and TA-W-33,503C]


Jasper Textiles Company, Incorporated, Fremont, NC; Starlite 
Drive and Jasper Drive, Lumberton, NC; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 4, 1997, applicable to 
all workers of Jasper Textiles Company, Incorporated, Fremont and 
Havelock, North Carolina. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34711).
    At the request of the company and petitioners, the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New 
information provided by the company shows that worker separations are 
scheduled to occur in September, 1997 at the Starlite Drive and Jasper 
Drive production facilities of Jasper Textiles Company. The company 
also reported that the Starlite Dirve location will close September 8, 
1997, at which time all workers will be permanently laid off. The 
workers are engaged in employment related to the production of ladies', 
men's and children's knit shirts.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Jasper Textile Company, Incorporated adversely affected in 
increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33,503 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers and former workers of Jasper Textiles Company, 
Incorporated, Fremont, North Carolina (TA-W-33,503), the Starlite 
Drive Plant, Lumberton, North Carolina (TA-W-33,503B), and the 
Jasper Drive Plant, Lumberton, North Carolina (TA-W-33-503C) who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
May 7, 1996 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington D.C. this 15th day of August, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-23709 Filed 9-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Opinion filed August 12, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00160-CV

__________

IN RE LINDA JACKSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Linda Jackson, has filed in this court a petition for writ of mandamus

that relates to a suit affecting the parent–child relationship between Relator and her 

children: Cause No. CV2001036 in the 35th District Court of Brown County. The 

trial court signed an agreed final order in the underlying cause on July 14, 2021, and 

Relator has filed an appeal from that order. Her appeal is currently pending in this 

court in Cause No. 11-21-00156-CV. 

Mandamus relief is appropriate only if the trial court has abused its discretion 

and there is no adequate appellate remedy. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 

(Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) 
2

(orig. proceeding). The burden of establishing these matters is on Relator. See CSX, 

124 S.W.3d at 151. 

In the proceeding before us, Relator complains that the trial court abused its 

discretion in numerous ways, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the 

proceedings below, that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient, that the 

integrity of the process below was questionable, and that the trial court’s order 

threatens continued serious harm. We have reviewed Relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus and the record that she filed in support of her petition, and we have 

concluded that the trial court’s order does not appear to be void1 and that Relator has 

failed to show that she lacks an adequate remedy by and through her appeal, which 

is currently pending before this court. 

Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

August 12, 2021

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1

See In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (holding that, if the 

challenged order is void, the relator need not show inadequate appellate remedy); Dunn v. Street, 938 

S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex. 1997) (holding that a writ of mandamus will issue to compel a trial court to set aside 

a void order because signing a void order is necessarily an abuse of discretion for which the ordinary 

appellate remedy is inadequate).
Colorado Supreme Court 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Original Proceeding District Court, Weld County, 2015CV30227

In Re

Plaintiffs:
Wilson Henry Rains, natural father and heir of Tori Rains

Wedan, deceased , and Bjorn John Wedan , natural father and heir of Austin Wedan, Hunter Wedan and Mason Wedan, deceased ,

v.
Defendants:
Douglas Barber, personal representative of The Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona, a/k/a Oliver E. Frascona, a/k/a Oliver Frascano; The Real Estate School, a Colorado LLC; and Joseph B. Lechtanski. Supreme Court Case No: 2017SA32

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Petition for Rule to Show Cause, the
Respondents’ Answer Brief to the Rule to Show Cause, and the Petitioners’ Reply

filed in the above ca u se, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises, the

Court orders as follows : Upon review of the record, we conclude that j udgment has not entered on
the jury’s verdict dated April 26, 2016. Because a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59

is premised upon the entry of judgment under C.R.C.P. 58, t he trial court lacked DATE FILED: June 1, 2017authority to grant the Plaintiffs’ Rule 59 Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the

Verdict and for New Trial.
IT IS ORDERED that the trial court’s Order of July 28, 2016 , and the trial
court’s Orders of September 1, 2016 , are VACATED. We make our Rule to Show

Cause ABSOLUTE and remand this matter for entry of judgment and further

pr oceedings consistent with this O rder.

BY THE COURT, EN BANC, JUNE 1 , 2017.
**Exhibit 10.5(c)**

 

**SITELCorporation**

**FREEZINGOF EXECUTIVE WEALTH ACCUMULATION PLAN**

 

SITEL Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, herebyterminates all contributions to the SITEL Corporation Executive WealthAccumulation Plan (the “Plan”), on and after December 31, 2004.Notwithstanding the termination of contributions to the Plan, the currentDeferred Benefit Accounts of all Participants shall continue to be held andadministered in accordance with the Plan. Capitalized terms used in thisdocument shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed onbehalf of SITEL Corporation this 10th day of December, 2004.

 

 
|   | SITEL  CORPORATION |
|--------|--------------------|
|   |               |
|   |               |
|   | By:                | /s/ James F.  Lynch |   |   |
|   |               | James F. Lynch,  CEO |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification**I, Paul S. Feeley, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Central Bancorp,Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Central Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.November 14, 2005         /s/ Paul S. Feeley           Paul S. Feeley      Senior Vice President, Treasurer and     Chief Financial Officer
# Anthropologist recounts ways to identify killed, missing warfighters during POW/MIA Recognition Day observance

/ Published Sept. 15, 2017
PHILADELPHIA, 
A forensic anthropologist who works to provide the fullest possible accounting of warfighters captured, killed or missing in action spoke about her work to Naval Support Activity Philadelphia employees Sept. 14 during the POW/MIA Recognition Day observance.

Carrie Ann Brown explained that the methods she uses at the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency Laboratory to identify remains of fallen warfighters include referencing medical and dental records, and examining the uniforms and equipment found with them.

Another important, and emotionally touching, method they use to identify remains is examining personal items the individual was wearing or carrying with them at the time of their loss, Brown said.

“I can always recall with great detail and clarity when individuals were found who had written their own names on the back of their watch,” Brown said.

There was an instance when the remains of a Marine who was killed during World War I in France was found with a marksmanship badge with his name and the date he earned the badge inscribed on the back.

“The date inscribed was exactly one year before he died,” Brown said. “Those are the things that really sit with you, personally.”

The talk provided insight into the way recovered remains are identified and showed the lengths that the agency goes to fulfill the promise to give a full accounting of all missing and fallen warfighters, said Patricia Cappo-Dean, a clerk with the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Industrial Hardware supply chain.

“I think what she does is absolutely amazing,” Cappo-Dean said. “It brings closure to families. That’s what makes me feel better.”

The Philadelphia Compound Veterans Committee organized the event.
256 La. 274

#### Mrs. Martha Bailey CRICHTON v. Succession of Powell CRICHTON (Miss Margaret S. Hemingway, Ancillary Testamentary Executrix).

No. 50471.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Mrs. Martha Bailey Crichton applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of. Webster. 232 So.2d 109.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
Central Co-operative Bank
 Senior Management Incentive Compensation Plan
 Fiscal 2009




---



##### 



CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
Somerville, Massachusetts
   1.
    
    The plan is competitive compared with similar sized banks and the banking
industry in general.2.
    
    The Board of Directors controls all aspects of the Plan3.
    
    The Plan is directed at the Banks senior executives4.
    
    The financial criterion necessary for plan operation consists of achievement
of specified levels of ROAA5.
    
    Incentive distributions range from 0% of base salary (did not meet goal) to
24% of base salary (maximum performance of plan).6.
    
    Award distribution would be made during the fiscal 2010 for fiscal 2009
performance.7.
    
    The categories of incentive plan participants and the related bonus range are
as follows:
 Position:
    
    Range of Bonus Awards:CEO
    
    0% - 24%Executive & Senior Vice Presidents
    
    0% - 18%
 1




---



##### 



CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK
Somerville, Massachusetts
 Fiscal 2009 Performance Goals
  1.)
    
    Meet or exceed a ROAA (Return on Average Assets) of .40%2.)
    
    In calculating ROAA, net income for the year excludes the following items:
any gains or losses on the sale or write-down of investment securities and bonus
expense calculated under this plan and any other bonus plan for the benefit of
exempt employees, all as computed on an after-tax basis.
 2




---



##### 



CENTRAL
CO-OPERATIVE BANK
Somerville, Massachusetts
Distribution of Awards
 
 ROAA
    
    Bonus %0.40%
    
    
    4.00
    %0.45
    
    
    9.000.50
    
    
    14.000.55
    
    
    19.000.60
    
    
    24.00
 
 ROAA
    
    Bonus %0.40%
    
    
    4.00
    %0.45
    
    
    7.500.50
    
    
    11.000.55
    
    
    14.500.60
    
    
    18.00
  3
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATIONS




I,
William Yan Sui Hui, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, of Innocom
Technology Holdings, 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and




5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




(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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
      August 19, 2009
                  
                  
                  /s/
      William Yan Sui HuiWilliam
      Yan Sui Hui , Chief Executive
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-704-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

August 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 22, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed 
in Docket No. CP97-704-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 
157.212, and 157.216, of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212, 157.216) for authorization to 
relocate an existing delivery point in Sarpy County, Nebraska under 
Northern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Northern states that service will be provided to UtiliCorp United 
Inc. (UCU) pursuant to currently effective throughput service 
agreements. It is asserted that the proposed volumes to be delivered 
for UCU at the proposed delivery point are 28 MMBtu on a peak day and 
3,066 MMBtu on an annual basis. Northern estimates a cost of relocating 
the proposed delivery point of $64,000.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23542 Filed 9-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M