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




Exhibit 18(a)

June 16, 1997

Dart Group
3300 75th Avenue
Landover, Maryland 20785

RE:     Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended April 30, 1997

Ladies and Gentlemen:

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 as of February 1, 1997, Dart Group Corporation
("Dart") changed from the expense method of accounting for purchased software
costs to the capitalization method. According to the management of Dart, this
change was made to reflect the fact that these assets provide probable future
benefits and contribute to future net cash flows.

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 Dart'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 January 31, 1997. Further, we have not examined and
do not express any opinion with respect to your financial statements for the
three months ended April 30, 1997.

Very truly yours,



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP






                                      27
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmo TAYLOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30437.

D.C. No. CV-97-00236-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Elmo Taylor Jr. appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised re*853lease. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We affirm.

Taylor’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated because even if the pay stubs that showed his use of a false social security number with two different employers were hearsay, his submitting the pay stubs to his probation officer constitutes an adoptive admission because he submitted them as proof of employment. *See United States v.*Camilo, 16 F.3d 1046, 1048-49 (9th Cir.1994) (finding that drug dealer manifested adoption of drug tally sheet by possessing the slip of paper when arrested and negotiating sale prices and quantities for cocaine that were consistent with the figures on the slip of paper).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the pay stubs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Taylor violated 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), because his use of the same false social security number at two different jobs is sufficient to establish that he falsely represented that the number was his with the intent to deceive the employers into paying him under that number.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 

### IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

January 14,2005



### Ms. Glen Stark, Water Quality ProgramManager Department of Environmental QuaIity Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton,Arizona 85247

EPA is in receipt of the Gila River Indian Community's October 2004 Nonpoint Source Assessment Report andManagement Program and has determined that it meets the September 1997Tribal Nonpoint SourcePlanning Hbdbook requirements. It provides a soundplan to correct ex~sting nonpoint sourceproblems andto prevent potential water qualityimpaiiments. In addition, the plan provides a comprehensive description of the Best Management Practices (BMP's) and measures that will be used to reduce pollutant loadings, andan effective implementation program.



### I commend the Community on developing its Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program, and hereby approve the Assessment Report and Management Program. Welook forward to working with you on futureimpleinentation of this important program.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 972-3439.

LnCe Gavette Project Officer Tribal Office, Water Division