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

**IndependentAccountants’ Review Report**

The Board of DirectorsEducation Management Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003, and the related condensed consolidated statements income and cash flowsfor the three-month and nine-month periods 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 March 31,2002, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods then ended were reviewed by other accountants who have ceased operations and whose report dated April 26, 2002 stated thatthey 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 analyticalprocedures 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 March 31, 2003, and for the three-month and nine-month periodsthen ended for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We have previously audited, in accordance withauditing 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 accompanyingcondensed 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.

 

|   |   |   |                      |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|   |   |   |                      |

 

Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaApril 23, 2003

22
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     EXHIBIT 11.1
                                 EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001


                                                 Three Months          Nine Months
                                                     Ended                Ended
                                              September 30, 2001   September 30, 2001
                                              -------------------  -------------------
<S>                                           <C>                  <C>
Net income                                    $            93,648  $           269,782
                                              ===================  ===================

Average shares outstanding                                560,318              560,318
Basic earnings per share                      $              0.17  $              0.48
                                              ===================  ===================

Average shares outstanding                                560,318              560,318
Dilutive average shares outstanding under
    warrants and options                                  263,800              263,800
Exercise price                                $             10.00  $             10.00
Assumed proceeds on exercise                  $         2,638,000  $         2,638,000
Average market value                          $             10.40  $             10.19
Less:  Treasury stock purchased with assumed
    proceeds from exercise of warrants and
    options                                               253,654              258,881
Adjusted average shares-diluted                           570,464              565,237
Diluted earnings per share                    $              0.16  $              0.48
                                              ===================  ===================
</TABLE>



     The stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange.  The average
market  values  are  derived from trades known to management.  Private sales may
occur  where  management  of  the  Company  is  unaware  of  the  sales  price.


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sotero ALVARADO-JIMENEZ, also known as Alvarado Sotero-Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50126.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

*80Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lucien B. Campbell, Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sotero Alvarado-Jimenez (“Alvarado”) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for illegally reentering the United States following a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Finding no error, we affirm.

Alvarado first argues that, in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court erred in imposing a sentence utilizing the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. We review for plain error. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 816208 (2005). Application of the Guidelines as mandatory, even absent a Sixth Amendment violation as is the case here, is plain or obvious error after *Booker. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 1811485 (2005). However, Alvarado cannot show that the error affected his substantial rights because the record does not indicate that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory, rather than a mandatory, Guidelines scheme. *See id.; Mares,*402 F.3d at 520.

Alvarado’s second argument, that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional, is foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. MartinezMata,*393 F.3d 625, 629 n. 3 (5th Cir.2004), *cert.*denied, -U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1877, 161 L.Ed.2d 751 (2005). Alvarado concedes this point, but raises it to preserve the matter for further review.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jamie WESLEY, Appellant.

No. 05-1274.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 12, 2005.

Michael A. Reilly, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Felicia A. Jones, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Jamie Wesley, Warren County Detention Center, Warrenton, MO, pro se.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jamie Wesley challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. At sentencing, Wesley moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 based on overstatement of his criminal history. The district court denied the motion and sentenced him to 135 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Wesley argues that the district court should have granted the downward departure, and that his sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review of the record, we find that the district court’s denial of the downward departure under the Guidelines was an unreviewable exercise of discretion. *See United States v. Frokjer,*415 F.3d 865, 874 (8th Cir.2005) (district court’s denial of downward departure unreviewable unless court had unconstitutional motive or erroneously believed it was without authority to depart).

Further, the district court properly utilized the Guidelines as advisory and considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Therefore, there was no error under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, ---, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (Guidelines are only advisory). *See United States v. Pirani,*406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc) (holding *Booker*error is avoided when district court calculates proper Guidelines sentencing range, treats Guidelines as advisory, and imposes reasonable sentence), *petition for cert. filed,*(U.S. July 27, 2005)(No. 05-5547).

Finally, we conclude that Wesley’s sentence was not unreasonable: the sentence was within the Guidelines range, and the district court explicitly stated it considered the sentencing factors listed in section 3553(a). *See United States v. Lincoln,*413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.2005) (sentence within Guidelines range presumptively reasonable; presumption not rebutted where district court expressly considered § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-23-058]

*Agency Holding the Meeting:*                     United States International Trade Commission.                

# TIME AND DATE: 

December 14, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

                        4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-583 and 731-TA-1381 (Review)(Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from China). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on December 21, 2023.                              ( print page 85311)    

                        5.                         *Outstanding action jackets:*                         none.                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.

The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 5, 2023.

Sharon Bellamy,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-26967 Filed 12-5-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### Williams , Rene e (OST) TUdV-e ^ 1)QT - OST-/?^? - Z?^" ^ From : Cind yClary[cclary l @twcny.rr.com ] Sent : Tuesday , Augus t 17 , 201 0 8:1 4 P M To : EA S (OST ) Cc : supervisor@town.massena.ny.u s Subject : Cap e ai rContrac t

T o who mit

may concern

I amwritin g t o expres s my concer n i n th e u p comin g contrac t fo r th e Massen aairport.Cap e Ai r ha s service dthi s are awit h reUabilit

y an dprofessionalism . The y hav e bee n ope n t o ne w idea s t o bette r support ou r communit y an dit s needs . Cap e Ai r

employee s i n Massen apersonall y wen t ou t o f thei r way t o mak e accommodation s for famil y member s durin g adifficul t circumstance , whe n afamil y membe r becam e rapidl y ill . I urg e yo u t o loo k a t what i s offered , thei r

service , loyalt y an dcommitmen t t o th e community . Ha s anyon e give n consideratio n t o Gul f Strea mInternationa l financia l status ? Al l thei r informatio n i s availabl e o n th e internet . It' s doubtfu l a t best . W e nee dt o avoi dan y interruptio n o f servic e t o ou r

area . W e d o no t

nee danothe r

"BI G SKY " o n ou r

hands . Pleas e d o no t

le t an y persona l issue s swa y you r decision . Than k yo u for you r Time . Sincerely , Cind y Clar y Massen aresiden t
15 P.3d 1128

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

October 27, 2000

23067

#### State v. Ungaro

Affirmed
VISITE

Aprenda cómo detener 

las plagas hambrientas.

Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados UnidosServicio de Inspección de Salud de Animales y Plantas 

“¡QUÉ BONITO EL ESTADO 

 EN QUE VIVES. ME LO PODRÍA 

COMER ENTERO!”
ACTUAL SIZE: 1"

ACTUAL SIZE: 1/8"–1/4"

ACTUAL 

SIZE: 1/2"

ACTUAL SIZE: 1/2"

ACTUAL 

SIZE: 1/2"

EGG MASS

FOUND SEPT–JUNE

ADULT

FOUND JULY–DEC

LATE STAGE NYMPH

FOUND JULY–SEPT

EARLY STAGE NYMPH

FOUND LATE APRIL–JULY

Above images by Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Lori LaCava Beatrice Liz Willow

Spotted lanternfly egg masses can be laid on any surface and 

need a careful eye for inspection! Below are some examples of 

egg masses on outdoor objects.

LIFE STAGES COMMON EGG MASS LOCATIONS

OUTDOOR LIGHT BULB OUTDOOR FURNITURE

FENCE POSTS VEHICLES

OUT-OF-SIGHT AREAS CAMPING EQUIPMENT

Brandon Zimmerman Jenny Armstrong Powell

Heather Leach Zil Fessler

FRESH OLD

SPOTTED LANTERNFLY

Checklist for Residents 

Help keep spotted lanternfly from spreading. Before you travel or move any 

items stored outdoors within or out of areas known to have the spotted lanternfly, 

check for and remove all stages of this harmful pest. Here’s what to look for.
❑ Vehicles

– Behind side mirrors

– Bumpers and wheel wells

– Under and inside vehicle

– Windshield wiper area

❑ Recreational or

Camping Items

– Backpacks

– Bicycles

– Boats/boat trailers

– Campers

– Folding chairs

– Ice chests

– Motor homes

– Motorcycles

– Recreational vehicles

– Snowmobiles

– Sports equipment

– Tarps

– Tents

– Other

❑ Children’s Playthings

– Bicycles, scooters

– Kiddie pools

– Playhouses

– Sandboxes

– Yard games

– Other

❑ Outdoor Household

Items

– Barrels

– Cardboard or wooden

boxes

– Firewood

– Outdoor furniture/lights

– Outdoor poles

– Plant containers

– Propane or oil tanks

– Refrigerators/freezers

– Shutters

– Storage sheds

– Storm/screen doors

and windows

– Trash cans

– Window awnings

– Other

❑ Building Materials

– Bricks/cinder blocks

– Cement mixing tubs

– Lumber

– Pipes

– Roofing materials

– Skid steers/forklifts

– Tools and toolboxes

– Workbenches

– Other

❑ Yard and Garden Items

– Backhoes

– Barbecue grills

– Carts

– Cold frames

– Dog houses, rabbit sheds,

chicken coops, etc.

– Fencing

– Garden tillers

– Garden tools

– Lawnmowers

– Sign and posts

– Storage sheds

– Tractors and trailers

– Trees, shrubs, and plants

– Yard decorations

– Other

Check yourself for spotted 

lanternfly nymphs or adults 

before getting into any 

vehicle. 

If you find any life stage of 

spotted lanternfly, destroy 

it immediately. For egg 

masses, be sure to crush 

all eggs evenly. Or, you 

can place any life stage 

of spotted lanternfly in a 

container with rubbing 

alcohol or hand sanitizer to 

destroy it.

Look before you leave! Any of the items below could carry spotted lanternfly 

to new locations. Use this checklist to inspect for spotted lanternfly before you 

travel or move these items from areas known to have it.

Do Your Part

To Help Stop This Invader

Learn More 

www.aphis.usda.gov 

(search “Spotted Lanternfly”)

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

APHIS 81-35-043 | Issued November 2021
51 P.3d 381

August 9, 2002

24033, 24034

#### State v. Vincent

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32.2 -- Section 906 Certification of ChiefFinancial Officer

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SBS Technologies, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the"Report"), I, James E. Dixon, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

/s/ James E. Dixon, Jr.

James E. Dixon, Jr.
# C_2020061EN.01004701.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/47

---

Action brought on 13 December 2019 – WM v Commission

(Case T-411/18)

(2020/C 61/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WM (represented by: B. Entringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the selection board of 27 September 2017 in open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 not to include the applicant on the reserve list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board of 27 September 2017 in open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 not to include the applicant on the reserve list;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting complaint No R/75/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting complaint No R/75/17;

| — | award the applicant an amount of no less than EUR 25 000 in damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant an amount of no less than EUR 25 000 in damages;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment related to employment and occupation.

| — | The applicant refers to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, (1) and to Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in support of his plea, and argues that the defendant failed to undertake the required individual assessment of the applicant’s needs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant refers to Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, (1) and to Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in support of his plea, and argues that the defendant failed to undertake the required individual assessment of the applicant’s needs.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---
May 18, 2001

22869

#### Nobriga v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

History of Wildlife Services Story

Map

Last Modified: 

Print
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00406

- CR

Carl Wade BAILES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0076

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The A ppel lant ’ s Second Motion for Extension of T i me to File Motio n for Rehearing is

here by GRANTED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of January, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
Veterinary Services – Safeguarding Animal Health Federal Relay Service

 An Equal Opportunity Employer (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

 1-800-877-8339

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Marketing and

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary

Biologics

Suite 104

510 South 17th Street

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 232-5785

FAX (515) 232-7120

October 2, 2003

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 03-14

Subject: Customer Feedback on Reagents

To: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Veterinary Services Management Team

 Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

 

The purpose of this notice is to inform interested parties of the process used by the 

Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) to collect and address customer feedback 

concerning reagents and reference preparations provided by the CVB. References 

and reagents are supplied when available as testing aids as described in Title 9 Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 113, Section 2 (9 CFR 113.2) to assist veterinary 

biologics manufacturers to meet codified requirements and as a service to the U.S. 

veterinary biologics manufacturers for agents or procedures without codified 

requirements. Reagents are also provided to USDA laboratories for diagnostic and 

research purposes.

The CVB welcomes feedback from our customers concerning the quality or other 

issues about the references and reagents we supply. We also welcome feedback 

concerning our responses to reference and reagent requests. In order to provide a 

timely and accurate response to your comments and concerns, we ask that you call 

only the CVB central number at 515-663-7331. Written correspondence may be sent 

by facsimile to 515-663-7673 or via e-mail to cvb@aphis.usda.gov. Your comments 

will be forwarded to the appropriate individual within the Center for response. 

We also request that customers return the CVB “Request for Reference Reagent or 

Reagent Seed Material” forms with the “receipt” portion (lines 18-22) completed. 

This information will allow us to address any shipping problems, such as delayed 

receipt or improperly preserved reagents.

All contacts concerning reagents and reference material will be recorded in our 

reagent database. This will allow us to track individual contacts and ensure that 

responses occur in a timely manner. Summary reports of customer feedback will be 

regularly reviewed and results used to improve our customer service and the quality 

of the reagents.

/s/ Richard E. Hill, Jr.

Richard E. Hill, Jr.

Director

Center for Veterinary Biologics