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





Independent Accountants' Review Report


The Board of Directors


Education
Management Corporation





We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Education
Management Corporation and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002, and the related condensed consolidated statements income and cash flows for the three-month period then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. The condensed consolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three-month period then ended were
reviewed by other accountants whose report dated October 23, 2001, stated that they were not aware of any material modifications that should be made to those statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States.





We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing 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 condensed consolidated financial statements at September 30, 2002, and for the three-month period then ended for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States.





We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States, the consolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' investment, and cash flows for the year then ended not presented herein
and in our report dated August 1, 2002, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2002, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.





Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


October 25, 2002


/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP
# C_2021009EN.01001302.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Pharma Mar v Commission

(Case T-594/18) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Aplidin — plitidepsin - Commission decision refusing authorisation - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Objective impartiality)

(2021/C 9/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain) (represented by: M. Merola and V. Salvatore, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---
# C_2021079EN.01000901.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Maksu- ja Tolliamet v Heavyinstall OÜ

(Case C-420/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/24/EU - Article 16 - Recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Mutual assistance - Request for precautionary measures - Judicial decision of the applicant Member State for the purpose of implementing precautionary measures - Jurisdiction of the court of the requested Member State to assess and reassess the justification of those measures - Principles of mutual trust and of mutual recognition)

(2021/C 79/10)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Defendant: Heavyinstall OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the requested Member State, ruling on a request for precautionary measures, are bound by the assessment of the factual and legal compliance with the conditions laid down for the application of those measures made by the authorities of the applicant Member State, in particular where that assessment is contained in the document referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(1) of that directive, attached to that request.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---
Dikkat 

Koyun ve 

Keçi sahipleri 

koyun ve keçilerin çoğunda ticarete konu 

olan resmi scrapie küpesi bulunması gerekir. 

Sürünüze resmi scrapie kulak küpesi satın almak için sürü 

kimlik numarasına sahip olunmalıdır Sağlamalısınız Küpe 

siparişi verirken bu numarayı küpe şirketine Lütfen Talep 

için 1-866-USDA-Tag (866-873-2824) numaralı telefonu 

arayın. Sürü kimlik numarası talep etmek veya ilk kez 

küpe siparişi vermek için. En güncel scrapie küpe bilgileri 

için burayı tarayın. 

Yeni misiniz 

Koyun ve Keçi 

Kimlik Programı? 

ABD Tarım Bakanlığı (USDA) 

100 adede kadar destek sağlayacaktır. 

ücretsiz plastik sürü kimlik küpeleri 

ilk kez katılacaklara (sürece fonlar 

devam ettiği) 

USDA Onaylı Resmi Scrapie Küpe Üreticileri 

AllFlex USA, Inc. 

Telefon: 833-SCRAPIE (833-727-2743) 

Fax: 972-338-3445 

E-posta: scrapiefullaf@merck.com

Çevrimiçi: www.allflex.global/na/product/scrapie-tags/

• Normal ve Scrapie'den Ari Sürü Sertifikasyon Programı

 

(SFCP) plastik küpeler

• Radyo frekansı kimliği (RFID)

• Çeşitli renklerde plastik kulak küpeleri

Premier 1 Supplies, LLC 

Telefon: 800-282-6631 

Fax: 800-346-7992 

E-posta: info@premier1supplies.com

Çevrimiçi: www.premier1supplies.com

• Normal ve SFCP plastik küpeler

• Çeşitli renklerde plastik kulak küpeleri

National Band & Tag Company 

Telefon: 859-261-2035 

Fax: 859-261-8247 

E-posta: tags@nationalband.com

Çevrimiçi: www.nationalband.com/

• Çeşitli renklerde metal kulak küpeleri

Shearwell North America, Inc. 

Telefon: 800-778-6014 

E-posta: SalesUSA@shearwell.com

Çevrimiçi: www.shearwell.com

• Normal ve SFCP plastik küpeler

• RFID

• Çeşitli renklerde plastik kulak küpeleri

Etiket uygulamaları her şirketin etiketi için farklıdır. masrafları size ait olmak üzere aplikatör satın almanız gerekir. 

USDA tarafından sağlanan küpelere dahil değildirler. 

USDA fırsat eşitliği sağlayan bir hizmet sağlayıcı kuruluş, işveren ve kredi kurumudur. Yayınlanma Tarihi Eylül 2023 | APHIS-23-033
17516

#### Arakaki v. State Farm Ins.

Affirmed
# C_2019230EN.01006601.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/66

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Apera Capital Master v EUIPO — Altera Capital (APERA CAPITAL)

(Case T-699/18) (1)

(2019/C 230/79)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24629]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8918]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Monet/Kelly''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Monet/Kelly,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Sterling and Francine Clark 
Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, from on or about November 
23, 2014, until on or about February 15, 2015, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-24629 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-3151 MASON B. BROWN, Petitioner,
v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

__________________________ DECIDED: August 5, 2005

__________________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , RADER and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Mason B. Brown (“Brown”) petitions for review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dism issing his appeal of his removal without prejudice pending the outcome of a criminal investigation into his conduct that precipitated his removal. Brown v. Dep’t of the Treasury , No. AT-0752-04-0289-I-1 (M.S.P.B. May 27, 2004) (“ Initial Decision ”). The full Board denied his petition for review, and the Initial Decision became the final decision of the Board. Because Brown has not shown that the Board abused its di scretion in dismissi ng his appeal without prejudice, we affirm

.Brown was removed from the Treasur y Department based on a charge of fraudulent use of identificati on documents and information and a charge of misuse of a social security number. Initial Decision , slip op. at 1. Because the matter had been referred for prosecution, at least some of the evidence could not be disclosed because it had been subpoenaed by a Grand Jury. Id. at 2. The Board, therefore, dismissed Brown’s appeal without prejudice, allowing Brown the option of re-filing his appeal within 45 days from the date the criminal matter is resolved or, alternat ively, within 20 days after expiration of six mont hs from the date of the Initial Decision

. Id. at 2-3. Although Brown argues that the Boar d committed error because he is innocent of the charges, the merits of Brown’s compla int are not before us. Brown’s complaint has not been decided, and the dismissal without prejudice gives Brown the oppor tunity to timely re-file his appeal and the opportunity to have the propriety of his di smissal adjudicated on the merits once the criminal matter is resolved. Whether Brown actually committed the acts of which he is charged is not the issue. T he only issue before this court is whether the Board abused its discretion in dism issing his appeal without prejudice. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1) (2000). Because Brown has not shown that the Board abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal without prejudice pending re solution of the criminal matter, we affirm.

05-3151 2
#### Lawrence J. PETER, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3617.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Jan. 6, 1978.

Mark E. Ashburn, Asst. Public Defender, Fairbanks, and Brian Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Thomas M. Jahnke, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, Justices.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence J. Peter appeals from his sentence following convictions for the offenses of assault and battery and robbery. He was sentenced to serve six months for the assault and battery conviction and ten years with five years suspended on the robbery conviction. The sentences are to run concurrently and are also concurrent with another prior sentence for which Peter was then incarcerated. As a condition of probation, he was ordered to attend and complete *1180the Fairbanks Comprehensive Alcohol Program.1 Although Peter is but twenty-two years of age and did not use a weapon in the robbery, we conclude that, in view of Peter’s extensive record of convictions since 1975, including crimes of violence,2 that the trial court was not clearly mistaken in imposing the sentence.3

AFFIRMED.

1

. We construe this requirement to mean that if he is unable to complete the course through causes beyond his control, such as lack of sufficient intelligence or the failure of the course to be available for him, it should not be grounds for revocation of the suspended sentence.

2

. Based on the pre-sentence report, memorandum of the defendant and the sentencing transcript, the state lists the following convictions:

> DATE OFFENSE SENTENCE

> 3/14/75 O.M.V.I. 1.5 days, $25 fine

> 3/22/75 Trespassing $25 fine

> 6/ 5/75 Failure to Appear for 10 days O.M.V.I. Classes

> EAXE OFFENSE SENTENCE

> 9/ 6/75 Failure to Appear on Charge of Disorderly Conduct 10 days

> 11/25/75 Joyriding 60 days/30 suspended

> 2/29/76 Larceny 12 days

> 9/27/76 Assault & Battery 60 days/50 suspended

> 10/26/76 Shoplifting 30 days/25 suspended

> 1/ 7/77 Assault & Battery 6 months

> 3/ 4/77 Assault & Battery 6 months

> 5/28/77 Assault & Battery 6 months

3

*.State v. Chaney,*477 P.2d 441, 443 (Alaska 1970).
# C_2021349EN.01002902.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Rodríguez Gómez v Council

(Case T-553/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2021/C 349/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 12) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 160 I, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
M-99-18, Attachment

June 2, 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

FROM: Jacob J. Lew

DirectorSUBJECT: Privacy Policies on Federal Web Sites

This memorandum directs Departments and Agencies to post clear privacy policies on World Wide 

Web sites, and provides guidance for doing so. As a first priority, you must post privacy policies to your

Department or Agency's principal web site by September 1, 1999. By December 1, 1999, add privacy 

policies to any other known, major entry points to your sites as well as at any web page where you 

collect substantial personal information from the public. Each policy must clearly and concisely inform 

visitors to the site what information the agency collects about individuals, why the agency collects it, 

and how the agency will use it. Privacy policies must be clearly labeled and easily accessed when 

someone visits a web site.

Federal agencies must protect an individual's right to privacy when they collect personal information. 

This is required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and OMB Circular No. A-130, "Management of 

Federal Information Resources," 61 Fed. Reg. 6428 (Feb. 20, 1996), and supported by the Principles 

for Providing and Using Personal Information published by the Information Infrastructure Task Force on 

June 6, 1995. Posting a privacy policy helps ensure that individuals have notice and choice about, and 

thus confidence in, how their personal information is handled when they use the Internet.

New information technologies offer exciting possibilities for improving the quality and efficiency of 

government service to the American people. Web sites are a powerful tool for conveying information on 

topics relating to activities, objectives, policies and programs of the Federal Government. Web pages 

provide a simple and speedy means of gaining access to information about the Government, thereby 

increasing knowledge and understanding of what Government is doing on the people's behalf. Looking 

ahead, as contemplated for instance by the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, people will 

conduct more and more business and other activities with the Government electronically. We cannot 

realize the full potential of the web until people are confident we protect their privacy when they visit our 

sites.

To assist Departments and Agencies in reviewing their existing privacy policy or in creating such a 

policy, I have attached guidance and model privacy language for several different information practices 
that may apply to your web sites. You can use the model language verbatim, or as a starting point in 

crafting a policy tailored to meet your own requirements and needs.

For any questions about this guidance, contact Peter P. Swire, Chief Counselor for Privacy, Office of 

Management and Budget, phone (202) 395-1095, fax (202) 395-5167, e-mail 

Peter_Swire@omb.eop.gov. To provide assistance to Agencies and Departments in implementing web 

privacy policies, Mr. Swire will form a Steering Committee for Federal Agency Privacy Policies.

Attachment

Guidance and Model Language for Federal Web Site Privacy Policies
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00113

- CV
Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services

v. Jose P. Baldonado

On a ppeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2008

- 08

- 4696

- I

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adju dged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 30, 2015.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00582-CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 8, 2010

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 2, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court 

has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-6566, styled State of Texas v. Jason Miears, pending in 

the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
EXHIBIT 32.2
    (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 operations of the Company.
  /s/ Paula J. MeilerPaula J. MeilerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
otherwise stated in such filing.