alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 15

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Shareholders

Frischs Restaurants, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying interim
consolidated balance sheet of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (an Ohio Corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 12, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the
twenty-eight week and twelve week periods ended December 12, 2006 and December 11, 2005. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information
consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.

As discussed in Note D to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement
No. 123 (R), Share-Based Payment, on May 31, 2006.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of May 30, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in
our report dated July 21, 2006, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                      
|----------------------
|GRANT THORNTON LLP    
|                      
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
|Cincinnati, Ohio      
|January 15, 2007
Exhibit 99.1








September 10, 2013Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582





ONEOK to Participate in Barclays CEO Energy Conference





TULSA, Okla. – Sept. 10, 2013 – ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) will present at the Barclays CEO Energy Conference in New York City on Thursday, Sept. 12, 2013.





John W. Gibson, ONEOK chairman and chief executive officer, will present at the conference on Thursday, Sept. 12, a t 1:05 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (12:05 p.m. Central Daylight Time).





The conference will be webcast and will be accessible on ONEOK’s website, www.oneok.com . A replay of the webcast will be archived for 30 days.





ONEOK also will post the presentation on its website that morning at 8 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time).





ONEOK, Inc. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company.  We are the general partner and own 41.3 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) as of Aug. 12, 2013, one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index.





For more information, visit the website at www.oneok.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews .








# # #
# C_2019022EN.01000801.xml

| 18.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 January 2019

(2019/C 22/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1396 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4649 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88260 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2858 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1312 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7580 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,537 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 320,07 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2835 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6890 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,1220 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5895 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5153 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9395 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6895 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5452 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 280,68 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,6940 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7167 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4273 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 159,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6877 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,847 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,9004 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,177 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2879 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,6400 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,9765 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1396

JPY

Japanese yen

123,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,4649

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88260

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2858

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1312

ISK

Iceland króna

137,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7580

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,537

HUF

Hungarian forint

320,07

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2835

RON

Romanian leu

4,6890

TRY

Turkish lira

6,1220

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5895

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5153

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9395

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6895

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5452

KRW

South Korean won

1 280,68

ZAR

South African rand

15,6940

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7167

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4273

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 159,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6877

PHP

Philippine peso

59,847

RUB

Russian rouble

75,9004

THB

Thai baht

36,177

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2879

MXN

Mexican peso

21,6400

INR

Indian rupee

80,9765

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 13, 1996, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATION AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE 28 WEEKS ENDED DECEMBER 13, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT
UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-13-1996
<CASH>                                       7,880,815
<SECURITIES>                                   500,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               83,180,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                   786,000
<INVENTORY>                                 58,896,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           157,780,088
<PP&E>                                     244,093,080
<DEPRECIATION>                             106,913,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             333,819,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       83,094,166
<BONDS>                                    165,447,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       607,515
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,510,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               333,819,767
<SALES>                                    545,967,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           545,967,563
<CGS>                                      496,402,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              496,402,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            42,608,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,002,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                653,743
<INCOME-TAX>                                   349,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            304,743
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   304,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32(a)**





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Viseon, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
      the year ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934
      and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.






/s/
      John
      C. Harris


John
      C.
      Harris President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)




September
      28, 2006
#### Joseph W. BLEDSOE, Appellant, v. McLynn SMITH and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, an insurance corporation, Appellees.

No. 73-779.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 12, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Osceola County.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Newal W. GRIFFIN v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 53038.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: Newal W. Griffin applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension, 268 So.2d 702.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 10867 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Michael Angelo Vasquez,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20
- CR
- 359 - 1

**_______________ _______________**  Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Angelo Vasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vasquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the r elevant portions of the record reflected

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10867 Document: 00516689500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2023No. 22
- 10867

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further res ponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 22-10867 Document: 00516689500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2023
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8219 

To direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to provide certain information to Department of Veterans Affairs 

medical center staff and homelessness service providers regarding the 

Coordinated Entry program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio (for himself and Miss RICE of New York) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to provide certain information to 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical center staff and 

homelessness service providers regarding the Coordinated 

Entry program, 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 ‘‘Improving Housing 

5 Outcomes for Veterans Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8219 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SHARING OF 

2 INFORMATION RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF 

3 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO4 ORDINATED ENTRY PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Health 

6 of the Department of Veterans Affairs shall— 

7 (1) provide to Department of Veterans Affairs 

8 medical center staff and homelessness service pro9 viders the information described in subsection (b); 

10 and 

11 (2) ensure that such information, and other re12 sources the Under Secretary determines are appro13 priate, are accessible to Department of Veterans Af14 fairs medical center staff and homelessness service 

15 providers. 

16 (b) INFORMATION DESCRIBED.—The information de17 scribed in this subsection is information related to best 

18 practices with respect to the collaboration between Depart19 ment of Veterans Affairs medical centers, homelessness 

20 service providers, and other local partners (including local 

21 Department of Housing and Urban Development offices 

22 or public housing agencies) on activities under the Coordi23 nated Entry program of the Department of Housing and 

24 Urban Development, including making referrals and shar25 ing data, as the Under Secretary determines appropriate. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8219 IH

1 SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNICA2 TION WITH EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR 

3 HOMELESSNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

4 The Under Secretary for Health of the Department 

5 of Veterans Affairs shall clearly communicate with em6 ployees of the Department of Veterans Affairs whose re7 sponsibilities are related to homelessness assistance pro8 grams regarding— 

9 (1) the measurement of performance by the 

10 Homeless Program Office of the Department; and 

11 (2) how to obtain and provide feedback about 

12 performance measures. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of P-Com, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 23, 2005            By: /s/ Daniel W. Rumsey
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Daniel W. Rumsey
                                    Principal Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3455

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Abel Sanchez-Rocha, also known as *

Felice Rodriguez, Jr., also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Feliciano Rodriguez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2006

Filed: December 7, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Abel Sanchez-Rocha appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more

than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. Rocha contends the court erred in finding he was

ineligible for safety-valve relief. 
-2-

To receive the safety-valve reduction, Rocha had “to show, through affirmative

conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the

relevant crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86

(8th Cir. 1996). We review for clear error the district court’s finding that Rocha did

not satisfy his burden. See United States v. Weekly, 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir.),

modified on other grounds, 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 1997).

Upon careful review of the record before us on appeal, we cannot say that the

district court clearly erred in finding that Rocha gave inconsistent answers about his

drug sources and avoided some of the government’s proffer-interview questions.

Rocha complains that the court considered only the letters from the prosecutor and the

arguments at the sentencing hearing, but the district court also had before it a letter

from defense counsel after the first proffer about Rocha’s refreshed recollection, as

well as Rocha’s sentencing testimony during which he was unable to remember

details about one of his proffer interviews, was evasive, and disclaimed knowledge

about the cost of the methamphetamine he had bought and about the contact

information for his drug source or sources. See Romo, 81 F.3d at 85 (defendant was

required to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement in crime and

his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of others).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
<TABLE>
 





                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                                        HARCOURT GENERAL, INC.

Computation of weighted average number of shares outstanding used in determining 
primary and fully diluted earnings per share:

<CAPTION>
(In thousands)                                        For the three months   
                                                          ended January 31,   
                                                         1997             1996


PRIMARY

<S>                                                    <C>              <C>
1.  Weighted average number of common
          shares outstanding                           71,000           71,827

2.  Assumed conversion of Series A
          Cumulative Convertible Stock                  1,263            1,317

3.  Assumed exercise of certain stock
          options based on average
          market value                                    117              216
 
4.  Weighted average number of shares
          used in primary per share
          computations                                 72,380           73,360
  
FULLY DILUTED (A)

1.  Weighted average number of common 
          shares outstanding                           71,000           71,827

2.  Assumed conversion of Series A
          Cumulative Convertible Stock                  1,263            1,317

3.  Assumed exercise of all dilutive
          options based on higher of
          average or closing market value                 117              216

4.  Weighted average number of shares
          used in fully diluted per share
          computations                                 72,380           73,360




(A)This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 9083 although not required by Footnote 2 to Paragraph 14 of APB Opinion
No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
</TABLE>
                                                   <PAGE>
RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. This is apparently the first case in which a court of appeals has ever reversed a district court’s departure downward for reasons such as those set forth here, reasons that have been dubbed “cultural differences.” Every case cited in the briefs and in the court’s opinion have simply refused to reverse a district court’ s denial of a downward departure based on cultural differences. I agree with Chief Judge Becker’s dissent in United States v. Yu , 954 F.2d 951, 957-59 (3rd Cir 1992), where he concluded that the Senten cing Commission has not rejected consideration of a defendant’s culture in making sentencing decisions. Thus, in my judgment, the district court had discretion to depart downward under the guidelines. The issue is whether the district court abused that discretion. I believe that the integrity and purpose of the sentencing guidelines require appellate courts to be slow to encroach on the discretion given to the sentencing courts. Distri ct court judges sit in a preferred position to understand the justice of each situation, while we must learn what we can from reading a cold record. Because district courts have an “institutional advantage” in determining when a case falls outside the heartland of guidelines cases, we shoul d not substitute our own judgment unless a district court has abused its discretion. Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 98-99 (1996). The very idea of discretion means that a se ntencing court could go either way and not be wrong on appeal. In this case, I would not encr oach upon that discretion, but would affirm, leaving the exercise of that discretion to the district court. The Supreme Court has explained that “[i]t has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every2 convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Koon , 518 U.S. at 113. In this case, the defendant was a Japanese citizen who had only trav eled to the United States twice before. The district court found that his offense “could be well the result of the cultural differences and his misunderstanding for the laws and the forms,” and granted a three-level downward departure. I believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion.