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 September 19, 2006, the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders equity and cash
flows for the sixteen week periods ended September 19, 2006 and September 18, 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      
|October 20, 2006
----

(2004/C 84 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has the Commission implemented the prudence principle for all risk capital operations? Can the Commission confirm that the net results will be published separately in the annual financial report?

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 938 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 938

To designate the Veterans Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, the ``Omar 
                    N. Bradley Veterans Hospital''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

 Mr. Volkmer (for himself, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Hancock, and Mr. Skelton) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Veterans Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, the ``Omar 
                    N. Bradley Veterans Hospital''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Veterans Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, is designated as 
the ``Omar N. Bradley Veterans Hospital''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the Veterans Hospital referred to 
in section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Omar N. Bradley 
Veterans Hospital''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Minta B. SLATON, Petitioner, v. George R. SLATON, Respondent.

No. 41098.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 246 So.2d 583.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Office of the Secretary

          - 7 CFR Subtitles A and B
          - 9 CFR Chapters I, II, and III

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice; extension of comment period.

# SUMMARY:

                        The U.S. Department of Agriculture is extending the comment period for our request for information on how we can provide better customer service and remove unintended barriers to participation in our regulatory programs published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 17, 2017. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.                    

# DATES:

The comment period for the proposed rule published July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32649-32650), is extended. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 18, 2019.

# ADDRESSES:

We invite you to submit comments on this notice. For proper delivery, in your comment, specify “Identifying Regulatory Reform Initiatives.” 

                        Electronic Submission of Comments. You may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:                         *http://www.regulations.gov.*                         USDA strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows you maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, and ensures timely receipt by USDA. Follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.                    

                        Submission of Comments by Mail, Hand delivery, or Courier. Paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions should be submitted to                         *regulations@obpa.usda.gov,*                         Office of Budget and Program Analysis, USDA, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 101-A, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Poe, Telephone Number: (202) 720-5303.

Rebeckah Adcock,

Regulatory Reform Officer and Senior Advisory to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-13153 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3410-90-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         202,938
<SECURITIES>                                     3,069
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,122)
<INVENTORY>                                     71,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,745
<PP&E>                                          64,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (16,314)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 726,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,768
<BONDS>                                         56,604
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    207,000
<COMMON>                                        69,068
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   726,120
<SALES>                                        134,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,158
<CGS>                                           86,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (44,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       630
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (45,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,267
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,885)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.69)
        

</TABLE>
#### The City of St. Joseph, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Robison.

Division Two,

November 20, 1894.

Practice: motion for new trial. A motion for a n'ew trial must, under the statute, he filed within four days after the verdict; it can not he filed thereafter. (R. S. 1889, sec. 2243.)

*Error to Buchanan Circuit Court.*— Hon. A. M. Wood-son, Judge.

Aeeirmed.

*Huston & Parrish*and *Sherwood & Allen*for plaintiff in error.

*B. R. Vineyard*for defendant in error.

Burgess, J.

This is ejectment for the recovery of the possession 'of a small parcel of ground which plaintiff claims as a part of a street, and to which defendant *2claims to have acquired title by limitation. There was a trial to a jury and judgment rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

The verdict was rendered on the sixth day of November, 1891, and the motion for a new trial was filed on the sixteenth day of November next thereafter. The motion was filed out of time, and the bill of exceptions can not be considered by this court. It should have been filed within four days after the verdict (R. S. 1889, sec. 2243), and could not be filed thereafter. It was so held in *Maloney v. Railroad,*122 Mo. 106. The judgment is affirmed.

All of this division concur.
-€D ;r4

I

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105.3901

Mr. Richard W. Corey NOV 26 2013

Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2815

Sacramento Ca1ornia 95812

I

/

Dear rCôrey:

On September 24, 2013, CARE submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rule and found that it fulfills the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51. Appendix V.

APCD/AQMD Rule # Rule Title

Placer County 240 Surface Preparation and Cleanup

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the complete

revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Robert Marinaro at

415-972-3019.

Sincerely,

l5eborah Jorda”

Director, Air Division

cc: Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer. CARE

Tom Christolk, Air Pollution Control Officer, Placer County APCD

Michael Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB

Printed on Recycled Paper
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 and EO 13563

Review.  Subject to Further Policy Review

1

Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 12866 and EO 13563 review 

of the draft final rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for 

medium and heavy duty trucks. They are for your consideration and subject to further policy 

I. Natural Gas Vehicle Credits. 

1) Interagency commenters request that the agencies on a stand-alone basis assess 

impacts under the following three scenarios: 

a) Current approach (accounting for CO2 benefits of NGVs) 

b) Light duty vehicle approach (multiplier of 6.67, the result of 1/0.15) 

c) New approach (e.g. using the Advanced Technology credits with a 1.5 multiplier 

on top of the current approach) 

2) Interagency commenters also request additional clarity from agencies on the claim 

that different crediting schemes will mean zero incentive. Commenters request clarity 

on whether that is also true in the Light duty vehicle context (where there are 

different credits) -- or is the point there that the targets are also synchronized? 

II. Commenter requests additional explanation regarding in-use requirements. Currently, 

Preamble states that “They will apply throughout the useful life engine or vehicle, 

just as existing criteria emission standards apply throughout the useful life.” Does 

applying throughout the useful life just mean that general testing or modeling must 

demonstrate that the engines/vehicles will continue to meet the standards 

throughout their useful life? 

III. Baseline Issue regarding AEO 2011. Interagency commenters recommend that the 

agencies simply use their own agency estimates of technology costs instead of 

using the EIA numbers of they are different to calculate costs and benefits against 

this alternative baseline. 

IV. Low rolling resistance tires. Interagency commenters note that many public commenters 

complained about low rolling resistance tires for some types of vocational trucks. For 

example, garbage trucks operate on a stop and go basis and aren’t likely to benefit 

from low rolling resistance tires. There are a lot of other issues with LRR tires such 

as safety, durability, etc. Interagency commenters request that the agencies provide an 

explanation for why they continue to believe LRR tires are reasonable and why there 

aren’t’ additional costs and unintentional consequences from using them. 

V. Optional Full Vehicle standards. Have the agencies considered including a full vehicle 

joint standards as options for manufacturers to meet? These could be established in 

addition to the separate engine and vehicle standards contained in the proposal.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1.1

                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED November 14, 1995 ("the
Amendment") is made and entered into this 1st day of February 2001 by and
between SeraCare, Inc., a Delaware Corporation  (referred herein as the
"Corporation") and Jerry L. Burdick  (the "Employee").

WHEREAS, the Corporation previously entered into an employment agreement on
November 14, 1995, (the "Employment Agreement");

AND WHEREAS the term of the Employment Agreement was previously extended  by the
Board of Directors  through February 6, 2003;

AND WHEREAS, the Corporation hereby wishes to amend the employment again;

AND WHEREAS the Employee wishes to have the employment agreement amended as
specified herein;

Now Therefore, the following extension and amendments are hereby agreed to by
both the Corporation and the Employee:

1.   The Term of the agreement has been extended through February 6, 2003.
2.   Effective February 1, 2001, the annual base compensation is hereby adjusted
     to be $175,000 per year plus an auto allowance of $750.00 per month.
3.   Employee shall receive 100,000 options with an exercise price of $3.25.
     Such options shall all have 7 year cliff vesting with accelerated vesting
     as follows:
          50,000 options will vest ratably over 4 years
          50,000 options will have accelerated vesting.  They will vest ratably
          over
               two years beginning with the achievement of his business plan for
               2002.
               25,000 shares, 25,000 shares 1 year later.

     All 100,000 options shall be accelerated in the event of a change of
     control.

All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall
remain effective throughout the term of this Amendment.


I hereby certify that the above amendment was adopted by unanimous vote of the
Board of Directors on January 12, 2001.

                                         Hereby certified

                                         /s/ Jerry L. Burdick
                                         ____________________
                                         Jerry L. Burdick
                                         Corporate Secretary
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit A



Volume of Plasma

For the fiscal year ending February 28, 2002, the forty-two existing Plasma
Collection centers must collect no less  than 752,000 liters.  This represents a
five percent increase over the prior year, adjusted for a five % increase with
respect the 125,000 liters acquired in the six alpha centers.

Cost Reductions:

Labor Cost Per Liter:
---------------------
For the fiscal year ending February 28, 2002, the cost of collecting plasma for
the forty-two existing centers must be reduced by $2.00 per liter from the
January, 2001 level.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Frank F. Khulusi, certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of PC Mall, Inc.; and

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date: April 30, 2010 | /s/ Frank F. Khulusi    |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      | Frank F. Khulusi        |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10
                                
                                
                                
              RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                    ADOPTED NOVEMBER 21, 1995


      RESOLVED, that the Company establish a Senior Executive
Bonus Pool for fiscal 1996 payable to Herbert F. Imhoff, the
Company's Chairman of the Board and CEO, and to Herbert F.
Imhoff, Jr., the Company's Executive Vice President, with the
total sum of the pool to be divided between the two
executives, in proportion to each executive's salary.

The Executive Bonus Pool will be equal to an aggregate amount
based upon the following contingency formula:

   No executive bonus will be earned unless the Company's consolidated
   pretax earnings exceed $1,000,000.

   If consolidated pretax earnings exceed $1,000,000 but are less than
   $1,500,000, a bonus equal to 20% of the Company's pretax earnings
   which exceed $1,000,000 will be added to the Executive Bonus Pool.

   If consolidated pretax earnings exceed $1,500,000, a bonus equal to
   25% the Company's pretax earnings which exceed $1,000,000 will be
   added to the Executive Bonus Pool.

The contingency terms of this Executive Bonus Pool formula
merely establish the year-end bonus percentage rate and are
not cumulative.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. James MEEKS, Relator, v. Hon. W. Rodgers TURNER, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Mandamus denied.
#### Robert Arthur McGREGOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00151-CV

S. H., Appellant

v.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 

NO. D-1-FM-11-004887, THE HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant S.H. filed her notice of appeal on March 4, 2013. The appellate record 

was filed on March 14, 2013, making appellant=s brief due April 3, 2013. The clerk’s record filed 

on March 14, 2013, did not, however, include the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of 

law and, for that reason, on April 3, 2013, appellant requested a fifteen-day extension of time to 

file a brief. A supplemental clerk’s record including the findings of fact and conclusion of law 

was filed with this Court on April 5, 2013.

Recent amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final 

disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 

6.2(a), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/MiscDocket/12/12903200.pdf

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this 

Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion in part and 
order counsel to file appellant=s brief no later than April 18, 2013. If the brief is not filed by that 

date, counsel may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on April 8, 2013.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                    Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     I, Robert Panico, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and its
subsidiaries for the periods presented.


Date:  August 14, 2008                      /s/  Robert Panico
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Robert Panico
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)