alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Letterhead of Mohler, Nixon & Williams]

To the Board of Directors
and Shareholders of
H.T. Components U.S.A., Inc.

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

      We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of H.T. Components U.S.A.,
Inc. as of December 31, 1998, and the related statements of operations and
accumulated deficit, and cash flows for the year then ended. Other auditors were
engaged to audit the financial statements of the Company as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1997 and, in their report dated January 28, 1998, they
expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

      We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

      As disclosed in Notes 1 and 3 to the financial statements, H.T. Components
U.S.A., Inc. is a member of an affiliated group of companies and has extensive
transactions and relationships with members of the group. Because of these
relationships, it is possible that the terms of these transactions are not the
same as those that would result from transactions among wholly unrelated
parties.

      In our opinion, other than the information in the preceding paragraph, the
financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of H.T. Components U.S.A., Inc., as of December 31, 1998,
and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

                                       /s/ Mohler, Nixon & Williams

                                       MOHLER, NIXON & WILLIAMS

                                       Accountancy Corporation

Campbell, California
January 22, 1999


                                        1
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-50849, 333-15189, 333-38713, 333-68147, 333-82679, 333-82677, 333-91771, 333-91951, 333-91955, 333-51644, 333-51648, 333-73980, 333-74252, 333-74254, 333-101542, 333-101844, 333-101846, 333-102063,333-120084, 333-120085, and 333-120087) of Applera Corporation of our report dated August 24, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of ourreport dated August 24, 2007 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Stamford, Connecticut 

August 24, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2796 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2796

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide grants 
          to States for summer employment programs for youth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2015

 Mr. Richmond introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide grants 
          to States for summer employment programs for youth.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS TO STATES FOR SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR YOUTH.

    Section 129 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 
U.S.C. 3164) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Grants to States for Summer Employment for Youth.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, from the amount appropriated under paragraph (2), the 
        Secretary shall award grants to States to provide assistance to 
        local areas that have high concentrations of eligible youth to 
        enable such local areas to carry out programs described in 
        subsection (c)(1) that provide summer employment opportunities 
        for eligible youth, which are directly linked to academic and 
        occupational learning, as described in subsection (c)(2)(C). In 
        awarding grants under this subsection, a State shall--
                    ``(A) partner with private businesses to the extent 
                feasible to provide employment opportunities at such 
                businesses; and
                    ``(B) prioritize jobs and work opportunities that 
                directly serve the community.
            ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
        to be appropriated $100,000,000 to carry out this subsection 
        for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SPENCER T. MYERS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-00-62; CA-03-2220-3) Submitted: September 9, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Spencer T. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia; Hunter Paul Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 PER CURIAM: Spencer T. Myers appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (20 00) motion for relief from judgment. The district court denied Myers’ § 2255 motion, which raised several claims, but awarded a certificate of appealability on one issue: whether the public safety exception to the warrant requirement authorized the pre-Miranda *questioning of Myers about the location of a firearm used in a murder. We deny relief and affirm as to this issue, and dismiss Myers’ appeal as to all other claims. In an appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions. United States v. Poindexter , 492 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2007). In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must show that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Under the first prong of Strickland , there is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689. To satisfy the second prong, the defendant must show there is a reasonable probability that his attorney’s errors altered the outcome of the proceeding. Id. at 694.3 Having reviewed the record and the district court’s decision, we conclude that Myers cannot establish that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the seized evidence on the basis of the alleged Fifth Amendment violation. Thus, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order rejecting this claim for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Myers , Nos. 3:00-cr-00062; 3:03-cv-02220-3 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 11, 2005). We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to all other issues raised in Myers’ § 2255 motion. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART ; DISMISSED IN PART
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             222
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,267
<INVENTORY>                                     77,717
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,053
<PP&E>                                           7,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,074
<SALES>                                         28,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,910
<CGS>                                           24,060
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (179)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (852)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (852)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Sherrill Stone, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Peerless
Mfg. Co. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     June 30, 2003 (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
     as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

                                                     /s/ Sherrill Stone
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Sherrill Stone
                                                     Chairman of the Board and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     Date: September 25, 2003
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

145) ll-K- (B) -144 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:53 AM Sheet 145 of 325 
P.2 

J ~ L—I ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, ll> A - W X - 9 7 

II-K-CB)-lVf 

July 5, 1984 

Mr. Robert Short 

Economic Analysis Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-12 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-02-3564, Work Assignment #19 

Sth Round S02 NSPS IFCAM Runs 

Dear Robert: 

Attached is a list of recent IFCAM nodifications. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Hogan 

TH/ce 

Enclosure 

cc: Dr. A. Wehe 

. 

Economic s / En g i n eer in g 
•• • ' V 

IFCAM MODIFICATIONS IN MAY/JUNE 1984 

1. Lime spray drying FGD systems availability estimate was revised 

from 95 percent to 90 percent. This raises the annual fuel costs 

and lowers the annual average S0_ emission rate estimate because it 

is assumed that natural gas is burned when the scrubber is not available. 

2. Lime spray drying FGD systems are restricted only to low sulfur coals 

(ICF coal types B and D, less than 1.67 lb S02/MMBtu). They are not 

a control option for medium and high sulfur coal types regardless of 

the required sulfur removal rate. Previously, this technology was 

applicable to all coal types. 

3. The sodium (NATH) scrubber capital and annual 0§M cost algorithms 

have been revised by Radian Corporation. 

4. "Interest during construction" (IDC) estimates have been added to the 

aggregate annualized cost output tables. Previously, IDC had not 

been estimated. The IDC estimates range from 3.3 to 13.6 percent of 

total capital costs. 

5. ICF coal type A (<0.8 lb S02/MMBtu) has been deleted in all regions. 

6. The delivered industrial coal price projections were revised by ICF 

Incorporated. Two new subbituminous coal types were also added in 

Federal regions 5 (Midwest), 6 (Southwest) and 9 (West). Reference 

memorandum from C. Ebert (ICF Incorporated) to J. Greenwald (EPA). 

Revised Industrial Coal Prices for Industrial NSPS Analyses. May 31, 

1984.
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2734 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, 

as the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

S 2734 RFH

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in La5 redo, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Federal building and United States court11 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

12 a reference to the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and 

13 United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate June 7, 2018. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR BILLING
INFORMATION CONCEPTS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          29,873
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,807
<PP&E>                                          25,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,847
<BONDS>                                          5,876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,109
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,171
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2021

No. 04-21-00100-CV

Penny ALBAUGH,

Appellant

v.

James WARD and Elda Gonzalez,

Appellees

From the County Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9642

The Honorable Arnulfo C. Luna, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 6, 2021, appellant filed a “Motion to Set Aside the Appeals’s Decision and 

Motion for Reconsideration and A Motion Request to Stay the Writ of Possession.” As 

explained in our April 5, 2021 order, we may not stay the judgment of the county court in this 

eviction case because appellant did not file a supersedeas bond with the county court. See TEX. 

PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be 

stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a 

supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”). Accordingly, appellant’s motions are 

DENIED.

On March 25, 2021, the clerk of the court notified appellant in writing that our records 

did not reflect that the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 was paid. However, with her notice of 

appeal, appellant provided a copy of her affidavit of inability to pay costs of appeal related to her 

appeal of the justice court’s judgment to the county court. The county court did not overrule 

appellant’s claim of indigence. Accordingly, under our rules, appellant is not required to pay 

filing fees in our court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(b).1

The appeal remains pending. An amended notice of appeal certifying proper service on 

the responsible court reporter(s) must be filed with this court by May 24, 2021. See TEX. CIV. 

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a). In addition, the appellate record must be filed by May 

1 Fees charged for preparation of the appellate record are governed by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 20.1(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145.
24, 2021, unless Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(a) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a), 

35.1.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 8th day of April, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### DR. L. D. LE GEAR MEDICINE CO. et al. v. HAIRSTON et al.

No. 7978.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

May 31, 1933.

O. H. Woodrow, of Sherman, for appellants.

BLAIR, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the county court of San Saba county, granting a temporary injunction restraining appellant Dr. L. D. LeGear Medicine Company and the sheriff of San Saba countyf from levying upon certain personal property alleged to be the separate property of appellee Ethel Hairston, under a writ of execution issued out of a justice court of Grayson county, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of San Saba county by appellant medicine company to satisfy a judgment for $60.65 in favor of appellant medicine company against appel-lees, R. A. Hairston and his wife, Ethel Hairston, jointly; it being alleged by appel-lees as ground for the writ of injunction that the debt for which the judgment was rendered was a community debt, and that the separate property of appellee Ethel Hairston could not be legally seized and sold under the execution in satisfaction of such debt.

The temporary injunction must be dissolved, because the county court of San Saba county has no jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment of a justice court of Grayson county, which is for a sum less than $200. Specialty Service Corp. v. Armstrong (Tex. Civ. App.) 296 S. W. 958; U. O. Colson Co. v. Powell (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 405; Ripple v. McCoury, 29 S.W. (2d) 436, 437, in which case this court held as follows: “It is also settled law that the jurisdiction of the county court is limited by the Constitution to suits where the amount in controversy exceeds $200, and does not exceed $1,000, and that this rule is applicable to its power to issue writs of injunction, which can only be issued where the amount in controversy exceeds $200 and does not exceed $1,000, except in those cases where' the purpose of the injunction is to protect the county court’s already acquired jurisdie'tion. Section 16 of article 5, Constitution of Texas, De Witt County v. Wischkemper, 95 Tex. 435, 67 S. W. 882; Crowell v. Mickolaseh (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 234, and eases there cited. Appellant had her remedy by injunction in' the district court under section 8 of article 5 of the Constitution of Texas, Arnold v. McNinch, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 555, 121 S. W. 904; Mebane Cotton Breeding Ass’n v. Sides (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 302; or by an ordinary proceeding of trial of'right of property under a claimant’s oath and bond.”

The temporary injunction issued by the trial court should be and it is hereby dissolved.

Injunction dissolved.
EXHIBIT 99.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John J. Dolan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation ("theCorporation"), certify that the Annual Report of the Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Corporation at the end of such period andthe results of operations of the Corporation for such period.DATED:     March 21, 2003           /s/ John J.Dolan                                                        John J. Dolan                                     Executive Vice President and                                      Chief Financial Officer101