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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1

February 14, 2002



iPCS, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 30303


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have been furnished with a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of iPCS,
Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended December 31, 2001, and have read
the Company's statements contained in Note 2 to the condensed consolidated
financial statements included therein. As stated in Note 2, the Company changed
its method of accounting for the recognition of interest expense on the
Company's senior discount notes issued on July 12, 2000 and states that the
newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because
the new method recognizes interest on a level yield basis over the term of the
notes on a methodology which conforms to that of its new parent company, AirGate
PCS Inc. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with
Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon
which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date nor
have we audited the information set forth in the aforementioned Note 2 to the
condensed consolidated financial statements; accordingly, we do not express an
opinion concerning the factual information contained therein. The consolidated
financial statements of iPCS, Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the nine
months ending September 30, 2001 were audited by other auditors.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria has
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the
Company's compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Company's circumstances.

Very truly yours,



/s/KPMG LLP
Atlanta, GA
#### M. V. WATSON, Petitioner, v. E. O. PREWITT, Guardian, Respondent.

No. A-7111.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. *4,*1959.

*816Renfro & Johnson, Dallas, for petitioner.

Spafford, Spafford, Freedman, Hamlin, Gay & Russell, Dallas, Warren Whitham, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals sustained a point of error presented in that court by E. O. Prewitt, respondent here and appellant there, that the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court were so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. 317 S.W.2d 954. In doing so the Court of Civil Appeals acted under the rule of law which, as it stated it, imposed upon it the duty to weigh and consider the evidence “which supports the verdict and that which does not, and to set aside the judgment and remand the case if after such consideration we conclude the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of all the evidence as to be manifestly unjust, regardless of whether there is some evidence to support it.” 317 S.W.2d 958.

 We approve the rule of law under which the Court of Civil Appeals acted and its application of that rule in passing on the point of error before it. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660. We accordingly hold that the principles of law declared in the opinion of the court are correctly determined, but we cannot stamp the application “Refused.” Before we can mark an application “Refused”, we must also hold that “the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is a correct one.” This court has no jurisdiction to review and either approve or disapprove a judgment of reversal based on the insufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict or a trial court judgment. Article V, section 6, Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St. For that reason the application for writ of error is “Refused. No Reversible Error.” Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors, Imaging Technologies Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in each of the 
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.'s 2-93993, 33-25980, 33-41396, 
33-57372, 33-86262, 33-86376 333-00871, 333-00873 and 333-00879) of Imaging 
Technologies Corporation of our report dated October 5, 1998 appearing in the 
June 30, 1998 Annual Report, of this Form 10-K.

BOROS & FARRINGTON APC
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

October 13, 1998
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

AmericanWestBancorporation 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registrationstatement numbers, 333-101040, 333-95989, 333-72834, 333-65628, 333-65630, and 333-58511, on Forms S-8 of AmericanWest Bancorporation of our report dated February 1, 2005, relating to the consolidated statement of financial condition of AmericanWestBancorporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the three years ended December 31, 2004, and our report dated April 15, 2005, withrespect to AmericanWest Bancorporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report is included in this amended annualreport on Form 10-K/A of AmericanWest Bancorporation for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Everett, Washington 

April 25, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          58,045
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              45
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   458
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    483,614
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         220,646
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           219,911
<LOANS>                                        755,378
<ALLOWANCE>                                     19,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,596,610
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,177,561
<SHORT-TERM>                                   266,398
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             31,017
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,596,610
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 61,402
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               39,326
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   871
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               101,599
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              59,073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,915
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           52,684
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,721
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 208
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 48,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,655
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      20,685
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,685
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.59
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,011
<LOANS-PAST>                                       428
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   892
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 33,190
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                18,612
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    5,152
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,368
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               19,549
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            19,549
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6851** 

THOMAS LEE BELCHER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00823

- REP )

Submitted : November 3, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Robert Allen Ratliff, ROBERT A. RATLIFF, PC, Mobile, Alabama; Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Vi rginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Lee Belcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable un less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (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)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U .S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Belcher 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01448]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9012]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ireland: Crossroads of Art and Design, 1690-1840''

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 ``Ireland: Crossroads of Art and Design, 
1690-1840,'' 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 Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, from on or about March 
17, 2015, until on or about July 7, 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: January 16, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-01448 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Exhibit 23 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM We have issued
our reports dated July 21, 2005 accompanying the consolidated financial
statements and schedule, and managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of
E-Z-EM, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the fifty-two weeks ended May
28, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports
in the Registration Statement of E-Z-EM, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8
(File No. 333-122744). /s/ Grant
  Thornton LLPMelville,
  New YorkJuly 21,
  2005 -131-
Exhibit 3

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut

and

Connecticut Jet Power LLC

l

)

)

l

)

Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8180

Modification No. I

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Connecticut !~t

Power LLC ("CJP"), having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and

Order 8180 issued on January 12,2000, do now, by mutual agreement, modify said Trading

Agreement and Order as follows:

1. Delete Table 1 and substitute the following therefor:

Table i

CJP- NOx EMISSION RATES AND RACT LIMITS (IbslMMBtu)

Peaking Unit FUEL FLER NOxRACT Suck Test Suck Tes: Date of Stack

(serial number) (Ibs/MMBtu) Rate (lbsfJ\fI\1Btu) Concentration R:..le Test

(ppmdv) (IbslMMBtu)

Branford 10

(675102) other oil 0.80 0.29 184 0.70 09/06/01

Cos Cob 10

(675337) other oil 0.80 0.29 193 0.74 08122101

Cos Cob 11

(675192) other oil 0.80 0.29 144 0.55 08/23/01

Cos Cob 1"2

(675342) other oil 0.80 0.29 182 0.70 08/23/01

Franklin Drive 10

(F662098) other oil 0.80 0.29 194 0.74 04120/01

Torrington 10

(612599) other oil 0.80 0.29 197 0.77 04/19/01

2. Change the date specified in paragraph A.7. from November 5, 1997 to February 27, 2001.

3. Delete paragraph C.2. and substitute the following therefor:

Initials (Printwltlll Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Sueel • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127

hnp:/ld ep.stal e.el. U5

n ..h ..,;~~ r~_p.~~ ..~q;~~..O;:'(JrIIUlifY.•Employer

Date#,---
nnecticut Jet Power LLC

2.

Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8180

Modification 1

a. On and after the date which CJP purchases the peaking units identified in Table

1 ofthis Trading Agreement and Order, CJP shall have in its possession

sufficient approved ERCs to meet applicable RACT requirements and the

requirements of this Trading Agreement and Order.

b. For the period between January I, 2000 and June 5, 2001, CJP shall retire I

ozone season discrete emission reduction credit ("DERC") and 1 non-ozone

season DERC.

All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order no. 8180 issued by the

Commissioner acting under Chapter 446c, Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, and 22a177 ofthe Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

CJP co.nsents to ~he issuance oft~is Trading A,weement and, Order. witho~t further notice. The

undersIgned certifies that heJs1).e 15 fully authonzed to enter 1Oto thIS Trad10g Agreement and Order and to

legally bind CJP to the tenns and conditions ofthe Trading Agreement and Order.

Connecticut Jet Power LLC

r--.< / 1//

Signature: _L,v-,c......=-'~=-=-===

Type Name: THOMAS E. WALKER

Date: '-f./vloZfssued as a final consent order ofthe Commissioner of

Environmental Protection on -P-, 2002.

TOWNS/CITIES OF Brallford, Greenwich

and Torrington LAND RECORDS

MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL, REnJRN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Certified Document
IB 

Union Calendar No. 206 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1556 

[Report No. 112–306] 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow certain land to 

be used to generate income to provide funding for academic programs, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. LUJA ́N introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Additional sponsors: Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. HEINRICH

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1556 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow 

certain land to be used to generate income to provide 

funding for academic programs, and for other purposes. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1556 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LAND USE. 

4 Section 824(a) of the Omnibus Indian Advancement 

5 Act (Public Law 106–568) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(a) LIMITATION FOR EDUCATIONAL, HEALTH, CUL7 TURAL, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.—The 

8 land taken into trust under section 823(a) shall be used 

9 solely for the educational, health, or cultural purposes of 

10 the Santa Fe Indian School and economic development 

11 projects that provide funding for such purposes.’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 206 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1556 

[Report No. 112–306] 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to 

for other purposes. to provide funding for academic programs, and allow certain land to be used to generate income 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Luther TYRE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28301.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1956.

*758No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $250.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to he regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of One Move Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Speakman, President and Chief Accounting Officer 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| /s/ Jeffrey Speakman                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Jeffrey Speakman

President and Chief Accounting Officer

August 10, 2005
[Cite as State v. Frierson , 2017-Ohio-4178.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 104671



## STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

## CHINA FRIERSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



### JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-14-591239-C and CR-16-603587

BEFORE: Stewart, P.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Jones, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 8, 2017FOR APPELLANT China Frierson, pro se Inmate No. 681-713 Lake Erie Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8000 501 Thompson Road Conneaut, OH 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

Christine M. Vacha Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: {¶1} In this pro se appeal, defendant-appellant China Frierson maintains that the court found him guilty without actually accepting his guilty plea. {¶2} Frierson pleaded guilty to assorted drug trafficking counts. At sentencing, he had second thoughts and told the court that if he had known that one of his codefendants was also going to plead guilty, he “never wouldn’t [sic] have pled out to them” because the drugs at issue did not belong to him. Tr. 19. The court then stated, “[s]o are you telling me you want to withdraw your plea here today?” Frierson replied in

the affirmative. After some discussion about the nature of the offenses to which Frierson pleaded guilty, including the state’s agreement to nolle firearm specifications attached to the drug charges, the court told Frierson that “[w]e’ll withdraw your plea and you’ll go to trial tomorrow, firearm spec and everything. No further plea deals on this case.” At that point, Frierson asked for time to consult with defense counsel. The court recessed, and when it reconvened, defense counsel told the court that Frierson “has decided not to vacate his plea and will take the — and will be sentenced today.” Tr. 23.{¶3} Frierson does not dispute that he abandoned his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but maintains that the court had to renew the Crim.R. 11 plea advisement after he changed his mind. There is no merit to this argument. Because the court speaks only through its journal, State v. Bonnell , 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 29, it could only vacate the guilty plea by journal entry. The court did not issue a journal entry granting the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, so the guilty plea remained extant. The court did not have to conduct a new plea colloquy. {¶4} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________________________________ MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR