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

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and 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 September 23, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders equity and cash flows for the sixteen week
periods ended September 23, 2008 and September 18, 2007. 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.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of June 3, 2008, 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 28, 2008, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
|Cincinnati, Ohio      
|October 27, 2008
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 Annual Report of SCOLR Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel
O. Wilds, 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, to the best of my knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and,




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
            /s/    DANIEL O. WILDSDaniel
      O. WildsPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerSCOLR
      Pharma, Inc.




Date:
March 10, 2008
# C_2018263EN.01000101.xml

| 25.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2016-2017 SESSION

Sittings of 1 and 2 March 2017

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 419, 7.12.2017.

Sitting of 13 March 2017

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 430, 14.12.2017.

2017-2018 SESSION

Sittings of 14 to 16 March 2017

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 430, 14.12.2017.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: 1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65077) of Cell Genesys, Inc.  2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-71608) of Cell Genesys, Inc.  3) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-102122) of Cell Genesys, Inc.  4) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-121732) of Cell Genesys, Inc.  5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-07707) pertaining to the 1989Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Planof Cell Genesys, Inc.  6) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59633) pertaining to the 1998Incentive Stock Option Plan of Cell Genesys, Inc.  7) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42644) pertaining to the 1998Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Planof Cell Genesys, Inc.  8) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54376) pertaining to the 2001Nonstatutory Option Plan of Cell Genesys, Inc.  9) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-63398) pertaining to the 2001Director Option Plan of Cell Genesys, Inc.  10) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-71606) pertaining to theCalydon, Inc. Management Incentive and Retention Plan, as amended  11) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-91796) pertaining to the 2001Nonstatutory Option Plan and the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofCell Genesys, Inc.  12) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-108740) pertaining to the1998 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 2002 Employee Stock PurchasePlan of Cell Genesys, Inc.  13) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-114720) pertaining to the2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Cell Genesys, Inc.  14) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117569) pertaining to the2001 Nonstatutory Option Plan of Cell Genesys, Inc.  15) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-127158) pertaining to the2005 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Planof Cell Genesys, Inc.  16) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-131367) pertaining to the2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Cell Genesys, Inc.of our reports dated March 7, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Cell Genesys, Inc., included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  Palo Alto, California
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 6, 2016

s0829 

# Order

Clerk September 6, 2016

151948

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151948

COA: 324944

Oakland CC: 07

- 213264

- FH

MICKEY HICKS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 723

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to expedite the deportation

and exclusion of criminal aliens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1993

Mr. LEWIS of Florida (for himself, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. HYDE, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. SHAW, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. GOSS, Mr. MCMILLAN,

Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. STUMP, Mr. WELDON, Mr. WALSH,

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. MICA, Mr.

JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. MILLER of Florida) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to expedite

the deportation and exclusion of criminal aliens.

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 ‘‘Criminal Alien Depor5 tation and Exclusion Amendments of 1993’’.
2

•HR 723 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITING CRIMINAL ALIEN DEPORTATION AND

2 EXCLUSION.

3 (a) CONVICTED DEFINED.—Section 241(a)(2) of the

4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2))

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(E) CONVICTED DEFINED.—In this para8 graph, the term ‘convicted’ means a judge or

9 jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has

10 entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere,

11 whether or not the alien appeals therefrom.’’.

12 (b) DEPORTATION OF CONVICTED ALIENS.—

13 (1) IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION.—Section 242(h)

14 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(h)) is amended—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(h) An alien’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘(h)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an alien’’;

17 (B) by adding at the end the following new

18 paragraph:

19 ‘‘(2) An alien sentenced to imprisonment may be de20 ported prior to the termination of such imprisonment by

21 the release of the alien from confinement, if the Service

22 petitions the appropriate court or other entity with author23 ity concerning the alien to release the alien into the

24 custody of the Service for execution of an order of

25 deportation.’’.
3

•HR 723 IH

1 (2) PROHIBITION OF REENTRY INTO THE UNIT2 ED STATES.—Section 212(a)(2) of such Act (8

3 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended—

4 (A) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as

5 subparagraph (G); and

6 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (E)

7 the following new subparagraph:

8 ‘‘(F) ALIENS DEPORTED BEFORE SERVING

9 MINIMUM PERIOD OF CONFINEMENT.—An alien

10 deported pursuant to section 242(h)(2) is ex11 cludable during the minimum period of confine12 ment to which the alien was sentenced.’’.

13 (c) EXECUTION OF DEPORTATION ORDERS.—Section

14 242(i) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(i)) is amended by add15 ing at the end the following: ‘‘An order of deportation may

16 not be executed until all direct appeals relating to the con17 viction which is the basis of the deportation order have

18 been exhausted.’’.

Æ
#### Elizabeth G. COURTNEY, one of the residuary legatees under the Last Will and Testament of her father, Fritz Gay Cornell, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF POMPANO BEACH, a national banking association, Hazel M. Cornell, and Robert C. Cornell, M.D., Appellees.

No. 69-823.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
261 La. 1053

#### Mrs. Anaise C. ROBIN v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.

No. 52471.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 23, 1972.

In re: Mrs. Anaise C. Robin applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 260 So.2d 118.

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.
263 La. 374

#### Mrs. Emma LAMBERT, wife of/and Thomas M. LITTLETON, Jr. v. B & R CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

No. 52948.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: Roy L. Provenzano applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 266 So.2d 560.

Writ denied. There is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 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 the operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  February 22, 2011 | /s/ Salvatore J. Zizza                                |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Salvatore J. Zizza                                    |
|                               | Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer) |
1 

Using Data Analytics to Detect and Prevent Fraud 

(8 hours) 

 

Course Overview 

Data analytics involves examining data sets to find trends and draw conclusions about 

the information they contain. It can be a powerful tool for auditors when conducting 

compliance or performance audits. This course is designed to help expand auditors’ 

knowledge of data analytic techniques to prevent and detect fraud and better enable 

auditors to work more collaboratively and creatively with data scientists on big data 

problems as well as improve their Excel skills for solving smaller data problems using 

worksheets. This course builds on the CAE course, “Data Analysis: Enhancing the 

Impact of Performance Audits” and is delivered over 2 half days.

CPEs: 8

Who Should Attend 

This course is designed for auditors who want to expand their working knowledge of 

data analytics in helping to detect and prevent fraud while conducting their oversight 

work. Participants should possess a working knowledge of data analysis and internal 

controls. Participants need experience and a current version of Excel so that they can 

actively practice data analytics techniques during course exercises. 

Course Objectives 

The course is designed to: 

• Enhance participants’ understanding of the foundations of data analytics ; 

• Show participants how other organizations have applied analytics to detect fraud; 

and 

• Teach participants ways in which data analytic techniques can be used for fraud 

prevention and detection. 

Course Topics

 

Foundations of Data Analytics 

• Data analytics terms of reference 

• Four key points to remember when using data analytics: 

o Challenges of using data analysis 

o Using a framework for planning and conducting data analysis 

o Using a data analysis plan to think through audit objectives 
2 

o Knowing auditor and agency management responsibilities 

Fraud 

• Defining fraud concepts and terms 

• How auditors may encounter fraud 

• Identifying fraud indicators 

• Cataloguing and mapping fraud indicators 

• Characteristics of fraud schemes affecting the federal government 

Fraud Controls (Data-Related) 

• Knowing internal control authorities 

• Understanding control activities and concepts 

• Awareness of control limitations 

• Using identity proofing as a key fraud control 

• Using data validation or edit checks 

Data 

• Knowing the hierarchy of data 

• Using the Department of the Treasury’s Do Not Pay function 

• Examples of data matching 

• Extracting data for mining and matching 

• Cleaning dirty data 

Fraud Analytics 

• Demonstrating and practicing fraud (data) analytic techniques: 

• Data mining examples 

o rules-based testing 

o reasonableness testing 

o outlier detection 

• Data matching examples 

o links and patterns analysis 

o crossmatching and fuzzy matching
| (1)  | The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                       |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. |

| November 3, 2010                            |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                        |   |
|                                        |   |
| /s/ Michael A. Neal                         |   |
| Michael A. NealChief Executive Officer      |   |
|                                        |   |
| /s/ Jeffrey S. Bornstein                    |   |
| Jeffrey S. BornsteinChief Financial Officer |   |
263 La. 988

#### Paul GEORGE et al. v. Louis M. SOWERS, Director of Corrections, et al.

No. 53035.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Paul George et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 268 So.2d 65.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporat ion 6-4 Trinity Consultants 

### 6.4. CLASS II AREA PSD SIL RESULTS

Impacts	were	predicted	at	the	Inn er/Outer	OCS	boundary	(Class	I I	areas),	and	were	compared	to	the Class	II	area	modeling SILs.		Maximum	hourl y	emission	rates	wer e	conservatively	modeled	for comparison	with	the	1‐hour,	24‐ hour	and	annual	averaging	period SILs,	and	no	puff	depletion	due	to wet	or	dry	deposition	was	accounted	for.		Additionally,	all	NO X emissions	were	conservatively modeled	to	represent	NO 2 emissions.		A	comparison	of	the	pollutant	concentrations	with the	Class	II area	SILs	for	all	averaging	peri ods	is	presented	in	Table	6‐4. Predicted	concentrations	of	NO X ,	PM 10 , PM 2.5 and	CO	do	not	exceed	the	SILs.		H ence	no	further	analysis	is	re quired.

Due	to	the	same	reasons	as	descri bed	previously	in	case	of	Clas s	I	PM 2.5 SILs,	Anadarko	proposes	to utilize	Class	II	PM 2.5 SILs	as	a	valid	mechanism	to	a ssess	whether	a	full	impact	asse ssment	is necessary.		Given	the	conservative	emission	rates	and	receptor location	(i.e.,	placement	of	Class	II receptors	at	the	Inner/Outer	OC S	Boundary),	and	small	number	of other	possibl e	increment consuming	PM 2.5 emission	sources	in	the EGOM,	the	use	of	the	PM 2.5 SIL	should	not	jeopardize	PSD increment	consumptio n	at	this	area.

Table 6

‐ 4. Air Dispersion Modeling Results ‐ Class II Area SILs

Class II Area Parameter Class II Modeling Significance Level (μg/m 3 ) Years 2001 (μg/m 3 ) 2002 (μg/m 3 ) 2003 (μg/m 3 )

Receptors	25

miles	from

nearest shoreline NO 2 ‐ Annual 1	 0.08	 0.09	 0.09

NO 2 ‐	1	hour	 7.5	 5.01	 5.04	 4.94

PM 2.5 ‐	24 hour 1.2	 0.12	 0.09	 0.11

PM 2.5 ‐ Annual 0.3	 0.006	 0.007	 0.009

PM 10 ‐	24 hour 5	 0.14	 0.10	 0.13

PM 10 ‐ Annual 1	 0.006	 0.008	 0.010
CO	‐	1	hour	 2,000	 10.56	 13.66	 11.81 CO	‐	8	hour*	 500	 ‐‐	 ‐‐	 ‐‐ *	The	CO	8‐hour	SIL	level	for	Class	II	is	500	μg/m 3 .	Based	on	the	result	of	this	anal ysis,	modeled	impacts	of	CO	1 ‐hour
values	are	well	below	the	CO	8‐ hour	Class	II	SIL	levels.	Hence Anadarko	can	expect	to	compl y	with	CO	8‐hour	SILs	via compliance	with	the	CO	1‐hour	SIL	values

The	fact	that	the	maximum	impact s	from	project	emissions	are	su bstantially	less	than the	SILs	(i.e., Table	6‐4	Class	II	maximum	proj ect	impacts	are 10%	of	the	24‐ho ur	and	3%	of	the	annual	PM 2.5 SIL) provides	further	support	for	the use	of	the	SILs	in	this	applic ation.		Hence,	it	is	reasonable	to conclude	that	a	proposed	source	with	a	predicted	PM 2.5 impact	below	the	PM 2.5 SIL	values	will	not cause	or	contribute	to	a	violation	of	the	PM 2.5 NAAQS.		Moreover,	as	shown	in	the	Table	6‐4,	all predicted	impacts	are	less	than their	respective	SILs.		Similar ly,	since	the	predicted	concentrations are	less	than	the	SMCs,	no	precon struction	monitoring	is	requir ed.
<PAGE> 1

EX-19.2
Management Report






Management Report on Mercantile Bank National Association's Compliance, as
Servicer, With Article III, Section 3.04 (b) of the Mercantile Credit Card
Master Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Applicable Provisions of the
Series 1995-1 Supplement



Management of Mercantile Bank National Association (MBNA), as servicer, is
responsible for preparation of the Monthly Servicer Certificates in
accordance with Article III, Section 3.04 (b) of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement for the Mercantile Credit Card Master Trust dated as of May 17,
1995, and the applicable provisions of the Series 1995-1 Supplement, among
MBNA, as seller and servicer, and Chase Manhattan Bank (formerly Chemical
Bank), as Trustee (collectively, the Agreement).

Management has performed an evaluation of MBNA's compliance with the
requirements for preparation of the Monthly Servicer Certificates in
accordance with Article III, Section 3.04 (b) and applicable supplemental
provisions of the Agreement for the year ended August 31, 2000.  Based upon
this evaluation, management believes that, for the year ended August 31,
2000, MBNA, as servicer, was materially in compliance with the requirements
for preparation of the Monthly Servicer Certificates in accordance with
Article III, Section 3.04 (b) and applicable supplemental provisions of the
Agreement.


/s/ John Deibel

John Deibel
Vice President
November 21, 2000


                                      9
Using Surveys in Performance Audits 

(8 hours)

Course Overview

Surveys are often used to gather generalizable information from a large number of respondents 

and can be a valuable methodology to use in a performance audit. While surveys can often be 

the best way to collect the kind of data auditors need for certain audit objectives, surveys can 

be challenging to implement. Auditors may find that surveys are time consuming to develop

and yet not produce the intended results if they are not designed well. Through lecture, class 

discussion, video, and small group exercises, this course will help participants better 

understand how to design a survey effort (including sampling techniques), write sound survey 

questions, pretest surveys, collect the data and analyze results. This information should help 

auditors make sound decisions about when to use surveys and how to effectively develop and 

administer them and interpret results.

CPEs: 8

Who Should Attend

This course is designed to help federal, state, or local auditors understand how to implement 

surveys from design to report writing. Both new and seasoned auditors, as well as team 

leaders, can benefit from the detailed discussion of how to implement a survey that will lead to 

objective, defensible results.

Course Objectives

Participants will be able to

• Identify when a survey is a good methodology for audit objectives and how to design the 

overall survey effort

• Understand how to write survey questions that are easy to understand or interpret, and 

that minimize burden and bias for the respondent

• Understand how to pretest a survey to find potential flaws and fix them before 

implementation

• Understand factors in collecting good survey data including respondent follow-up 

techniques, and how to analyze and report on survey data

Course Topics

Survey Design

• When to use surveys

• Five stages of survey development
• Going from audit objectives to survey questions

• Sampling considerations

Developing Survey Questions

• Writing easily understood survey questions to avoid burden and bias

• Open-ended survey questions

• Closed-ended survey questions

o Yes/No

o Multiple choice

o Rating

o Ranking

•Order/sequence of questions

Pretesting Surveys

• Cognitive interviews

• Before the pretest

o Participant selection

o Mode selection

o Pretest planning

•During the pretest – retrospective and concurrent approaches

•After the pretest – documenting findings, finalizing survey

Collecting Survey Data

• Non-response follow-up

• Assessing non-response bias

• Verifying survey data

Analyzing and Reporting on Results

• Data analysis plan

• Reporting based on type of sampling