alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 16.1

                         [COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD]


November 7, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by Procom Technology, Inc. under the caption
"Change in Accountants" (copy attached), which were filed with the Commission
on October 30, 1996, pursuant to Item 11(i) of Form S-1. As the prior
accounting firm referenced therein, we agree with the statements relating to
our Firm in such Form S-1 concerning that (i) we had no disagreements on any
material accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or
auditing scope or procedures; (ii) our opinion contained no adverse or
disclaimer of opinion, or other qualification or modification; and (iii) we are
unaware of any other reportable events.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

<PAGE>   2


                             CHANGE IN ACCOUNTANTS


        Effective July 24, 1995, Arthur Andersen was engaged as the principal
independent accountants for the Company to replace the Company's prior
accounting firm, which was dismissed effective the same date. The decision to
change independent accountants was approved by the Board. In connection with the
audit of fiscal 1994, there were no disagreements with the prior accounting firm
on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement
disclosure, or auditing scope or procedures, which disagreements if not resolved
to the satisfaction of the firm would have caused the firm to make reference to
the matter in its report. The audit report of the prior accounting firm on the
consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended
July 29, 1994 did not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor
was it qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting
principles. During fiscal 1994 and through July 24, 1995, there were no
reportable events. During the two fiscal years and the subsequent interim period
preceding the engagement of Arthur Andersen, the Company had not consulted with
Arthur Andersen on items that were or should have been subject to SAS 50 or
concerned the subject matter of a disagreement or reportable event with the
prior accounting firm.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133015 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133015 

 COA: 270436 

Wayne CC: 01-002342-01

CORNELIUS WEBB,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8243

LEROY BURTON, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

HENRY D. MCMASTER, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(6:07-cv-03030-DCN) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Leroy Burton, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, SOUTH 

CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Leroy Burton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)(2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Burton has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2010 (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 Company.
 /s/ WILLIAM A. PRIDDY, JR.William A. Priddy, Jr.
     Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Vice President
     of Administration and Secretary
     June 2, 2010
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00548

- CR

ANTHONY LEXINGTON KOPYCINSKI

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 149th District Court of Brazoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 85949

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having con sidered 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

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
May 26, 2022
#### Bunn et al., *v.*Furstein, Appellant.

*638Argued October 1, 1943.

Before Keller, P. J., Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ. (Baldrige and Reno, JJ., absent).

*Lester S. Hecht,*with him *Philip Sterling,*for appelant.

*William V. Mullin,*for appellees.

December 9, 1943:

Opinion by

Kenworthey, J.,

Nelson Jacot, the most important witness to this automobile accident, was not called by either side at the trial. He was shown to have been a passenger in the automobile which injured the minor plaintiff. The record does not disclose whether his absence was explained. As a result, the evidence of negligence was, to say the least, meager and the evidence of agency largely circumstantial.

Nevertheless, the verdicts were for plaintiffs. Defendant then filed motions for judgment n.o.v. and for new trial. The court overruled the former and granted a new trial. Defendant appeals and assigns as error the refusal to enter judgment n.o.v.

A trial court is not bound to enter judgment n.o.v. in every case in which it is later convinced it should have given binding instructions at the trial. It has discretionary power, in the interest of justicé, to give *639another chance to the party against whom, on the basis of the existing record, it might feel compelled to enter judgment. And in such cases, particularly where, as here, the losing party files *both*motions, appellate review is limited to determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion. The matter has been exhaustively discussed by the Supreme 'Court in *March v. Phila. & West Chester Traction Co.,*285 Pa. 413, 132 A. 355, the first case arising under the Act of April 9, 1925, P. L. 221, 12 PS §682. See also *Trimble v. Mennel Milling Co.,*313 Pa. 188, 169 A. 84; *Phillips v. American Stores Co.,*342 Pa. 33, 20 A. (2d) 190. And compare *Petkov v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*321 Pa. 14, 183 A. 46, where the *losing*party was given a new trial, there was nothing to justify the court’s action, and the lower court, in its opinion, said “in all probability, the result will be the same.”

Here we do not pass on the question of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to go to the jury because a new trial, with the production of the missing eye-witness, may completely alter its complexion. See *Kline v. Moyer,*333 Pa. 486, 3 A. (2d) 920; *Fulginiti v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.,*259 Pa. 344, 103 A. 51.

Order affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 155

To reduce Federal spending by prohibiting the backfit of Trident I ballistic

missile submarines to carry D–5 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic

missiles.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr.

HARKIN, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations

A BILL

To reduce Federal spending by prohibiting the backfit of

Trident I ballistic missile submarines to carry D–5 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

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 ‘‘Prohibition on D–5

5 Trident II Backfit Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON D–5 TRIDENT II BACKFIT.

7 (a) PROGRAM TERMINATION.—The Secretary of De8 fense, the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander-in-
2

S 155 IS

1 Chief of United States Strategic Command shall cease all

2 planning for modification of any Trident I submarine to

3 enable that submarine to be deployed with Trident II (D–

4 5) missiles.

5 (b) PROHIBITION OF BACKFIT-RELATED EXPENDI6 TURES.—

7 (1) No funds appropriated to the Department

8 of Defense may be obligated for any D–5 missiles,

9 D–5 missile components, ship modifications and ship

10 components that are associated with a D–5 Trident

11 II Backfit program.

12 (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), and D–5

13 missiles beyond number 389, and their related com14 ponents (rocket motors, guidance sets, etc.) shall be

15 considered to be associated with a D–5 Trident II

16 Backfit program.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF DAMSON BIRTCHER REALTY INCOME FUND II AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,563,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,353,000
<PP&E>                                      27,225,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,578,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          751,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,827,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,578,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,928,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,861,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               225,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,842,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,842,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
8/17/2009

Location Name Units 8/14/09-8/16/09

ng/m3 4.56

ng/m3 4.55

ng/m3 1.90

ng/m3 2.24

ng/m3 0.59

ng/m3 0.19

Total PM2.5 μg/m3 23.01

CARES Stationary Air Sampling Data on EPA 

EPA Dates

Parameter

Marietta College Biology 

Building

Manganese (PM2.5)

Lead (PM2.5)

Chromium (PM2.5)

Arsenic (PM2.5)

Cadmium (PM2.5)

Nickel (PM2.5)
8/23/2009 8/29/2009 9/4/2009 9/10/2009 9/16/2009

8/24/09-8/26/09 8/31/09-9/2/09 9/2/09-9/5/09 9/9/09-9/11/09 9/14/09-9/16/09

35.46 1.66 4.71 8.30 6.60

5.85 2.29 40.05 2.85 3.41

2.35 2.54 2.74 2.32 2.30

3.18 0.92 4.67 0.58 1.44

0.84 0.46 0.61 0.11 0.36

<DL <DL 0.39 0.29 <DL

17.81 7.53 10.52 16.97 13.05

ir Sampling Data on EPA Sampling Dates
9/22/2009 9/28/2009 10/4/2009 10/10/2009 10/16/2009

9/21/09-9/23/09 9/26/09-9/28/09 10/3/09-10/5/09 10/9/09-10/11/09 10/14/09-10/16/09

1.30 8.65 68.53 41.56 5.06

3.98 2.69 4.60 3.63 2.10

2.04 1.52 2.75 2.21 2.32

0.84 0.49 1.48 1.48 0.46

0.16 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.05

0.24 <DL 0.42 <DL 0.90

9.52 6.19 6.48 5.81 15.47
10/22/2009 10/28/2009 11/3/2009 11/9/2009 11/15/2009

10/21/09-10/23/09 10/26/09-10/28/09 11/2/09-11/4/09 11/6/09-11/8/09 11/14/09-11/16/09

30.59 5.26 9.72 35.65 41.79

7.86 2.77 4.57 6.42 7.89

3.28 3.20 2.50 3.03 2.49

3.45 1.80 1.16 3.06 5.50

0.68 0.26 0.25 0.61 0.69

<DL <DL <DL <DL 0.33

18.46 8.60 11.25 15.38 19.11
Exhibit
32.4
 
 
 Certification
of Chief Accounting Officer
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (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
      aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 
 
 
 Date:
April 15, 2005
 
 
 _________________
 Ray
Sienko
 Chief
Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred Capital,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John D. Van Fleet, Vice President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                (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
                        result of operations of the Company.



                                         /s/ John D. Van Fleet
                                         --------------------------------------
                                             John D. Van Fleet, Vice President
                                             (chief financial officer)
                                             November 13, 2003



        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      16,273,672
<SECURITIES>                                									0
<RECEIVABLES>                                								0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           										0
<PP&E>                                     130,083,943
<DEPRECIATION>                             (16,440,235)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             132,006,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,313,497
<BONDS>                                     50,571,739
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,600,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               132,006,540
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,600,870
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,881,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            									0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,652,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,066,619
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         	2,066,619
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                	2,066,619
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 8.1 SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES The table below sets forth all of our direct and indirect significant subsidiaries and the percentage of equity of each subsidiary we owned directly or indirectly as of December 31, 2011: Name of Company

   Jurisdiction of Incorporation

   Percentage Owned

   DescriptionPropimex, S. de R.L. de C.V.(1)...............................

   Mexico

   100.0%

   Manufacturer of bottles and distributor of bottled beverages.Controladora Interamericana de Bebidas, S.A. de C.V..

   Mexico

   100.0%

   Holding company of manufacturers and distributors of beverages.Spal Industria Brasileira de Bebidas, S.A...........

   Brazil

   97.9%

   Manufacturer of cans and related products for bottling beverages and distributor of bottled beverages.Coca-Cola FEMSA de Venezuela S.A. (formerly, Panamco Venezuela, S.A. de C.V.)..............................

   Venezuela

   100.0%

   Manufacturer of bottles and related products for bottling beverages and distributor of bottled beverages.
 
 (1)On March 2, 2012, Propimex, S.A. de C.V. was converted into Propimex, S. de R.L. de C.V. (a limited liability company).


---
<PAGE>

32.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
         Officer of Econometrics, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
         Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 on Form 10-K of ECONOMETRICS (the
"Company") for the year ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael
Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Econometrics,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

Dated: July 14, 2008

                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      -----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      -----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.2

 

PLEDGE AMENDMENT

 

This PLEDGE AMENDMENT, dated as of January 5, 2012, is delivered pursuant to Section 8.6 of the Guaranty and Security Agreement, dated as of November 30, 2010, among CCA Club Operations Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Holdings”), ClubCorp Club Operations, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), the undersigned Grantor and the other Affiliates of the Borrower from time to time party thereto as Grantors in favor of Citicorp North America, Inc., as administrative agent and collateral agent for the Secured Parties referred to therein (the “Guaranty and Security Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein without definition are used as defined in the Guaranty and Security Agreement.

 

The undersigned hereby agrees that this Pledge Amendment may be attached to the Guaranty and Security Agreement and that the Pledged Collateral listed on Schedule 1 to this Pledge Amendment shall be and become part of the Collateral referred to in the Guaranty and Security Agreement and shall secure all Obligations of the undersigned.

 

The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that each of the representations and warranties contained in Article IV of the Guaranty and Security Agreement is true and correct as of the date hereof as if made on and as of such date.

 

	
 
    	
CLUBCORP USA, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Curtis D. McClellan
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Curtis D. McClellan
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Treasurer
    


 











 

	
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED
    	
 
    
	
as of the date first above written:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC.
    	
 
    
	
as Administrative Agent
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/John C. Rowland
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name: John C. Rowland
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title: Director
    	
 
    


 











 

Schedule 1

 

PLEDGED EQUITY

 

	
ISSUER
    	
 
    	
CLASS
    	
 
    	
CERTIFICATE NO(S).
    	
 
    	
PAR VALUE
    	
 
    	
NUMBER OF
   SHARES,
   UNITS OR
   INTERESTS
    	
 
    
	
CCFL, Inc.
    	
 
    	
Common
    	
 
    	
1
    	
 
    	
$
    	
0.01
    	
 
    	
1000
    	
 
    
	
CCCA, Inc.
    	
 
    	
Common
    	
 
    	
1
    	
 
    	
$
    	
0.01
    	
 
    	
1000
    	
 
    
	
CCNV, Inc.   (fka ClubCorp Ridge Club, Inc.)
    	
 
    	
Common
    	
 
    	
2
    	
 
    	
$
    	
0.01
    	
 
    	
1000