alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015158EN.01000501.xml

| 13.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 May 2015

(2015/C 158/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1239 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4630 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71640 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3147 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0396 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3945 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,394 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,57 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1028 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4655 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0245 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4070 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3532 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7133 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5239 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5013 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 231,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6327 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9822 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 844,94 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0609 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,366 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 56,9300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,939 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4514 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3215 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,2546 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1239

JPY

Japanese yen

134,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4630

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71640

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3147

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0396

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3945

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,394

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,57

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1028

RON

Romanian leu

4,4655

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0245

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4070

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3532

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7133

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5239

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5013

KRW

South Korean won

1 231,25

ZAR

South African rand

13,6327

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9822

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 844,94

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0609

PHP

Philippine peso

50,366

RUB

Russian rouble

56,9300

THB

Thai baht

37,939

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4514

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3215

INR

Indian rupee

72,2546

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
06/08/2014 07:37 FAX 202 2675106 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

141002/003 

IN THE MATTER OF RECEIVED 

EXECUTIVE FLITEW A YS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. FAA-2013-1085 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA CASE NO. 201280950377 

MOTION TO WlTilDRA W COMPLAINT 

JUN 0 9 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Pursuant to Sections 13.215 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 

CYR. § 13.215), the Complainant hereby files this motion to withdraw its Complaint in this 

matter based on an agreement to settle between the parties. 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfully requests that the Complaint in this matter 

be withdrawn and an order be issued terminating the pending proceeding. 

Dated: June 9, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

1!~7-111~4 M1chael F. McKinley 

Senior Attorney 
08/08/2014 07:37 FAX 202 2875108 141003/003 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date, I have sent by facsimile, a copy of the foregoing motion 

in the matter of Executive Fliteways, Inc., Docket No. FAA-2013-1085, Case No. 

201280950377, to: 

Mr. Kenneth S. Gray 

Respondent's Representative 

Director of Operations 

Executive Fliteways, Inc. 

One Clark Drive 

Ronkonkoma, NY 1 \779 

Fax: 631-588-5527 

The Honorable J.E. Su\Uvan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E., Room E11-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Orville Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

Date: June 9, 2014 

2
# C_2014325EN.01000201.xml

| 19.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7318 — Rosneft / Morgan Stanley Global Oil Merchanting Unit)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 325/03

On 3 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7318. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7318. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 24.6

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



     KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman, Lawrence E.
Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the
REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 2nd day
of March, 1998.



                                                  /s/ IRWIN ENGELMAN
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  IRWIN ENGELMAN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7186

MICHAEL ANTHONY SORBELLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAYWOOD COUNTY MUNICIPALITY; CHARLIE COOK, Public Defender, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity; M.A. MCABEE, 

Deputy Sheriff with the Haywood County Sheriff’s Office, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity; ROB SKIVER, 

Police Officer with the Waynesville Police Department, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity; N.C. STATE CRIME 

LABORATORY, Department of Justice Western; G. BAXTER, 

Examiner with the N.C. State Crime Laboratory, Individually 

and in his Official Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00274-FDW)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Sorbello, Appellant Pro Se. 
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Sorbello appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sorbello’s informal 

brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Sorbello has waived appellate review of the court’s 

order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 

(4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny Sorbello’s motion for 

appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s order. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

RONALD COLLAZO,

Petitioner

v.

THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PA.

SUPREME COURT,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 76 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20 th day of October , 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the Application for an

Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00144-CR

The State of Texas

v.

Tiphanie Raquel Tippin

On appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-04-28623-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 22, 2016
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2487 

To prohibit the provision of Federal assistance to transit and rail projects 

with significant cost overruns and that are projected to lose money, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2021 

Ms. ERNST (for herself and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the provision of Federal assistance to transit 

and rail projects with significant cost overruns and that 

are projected to lose money, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Put the Brakes on 

5 Boondoggles Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2487 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 

2 CERTAIN TRANSIT AND RAIL PROJECTS. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec4 retary of Transportation shall not provide any new assist5 ance for a transit or rail project if— 

6 (1) the overall cost projection to complete the 

7 project exceeds the original cost projection by at 

8 least $1,000,000,000; and 

9 (2) the operational and administrative costs of 

10 the service provided by the project are projected to 

11 exceed the revenues generated from ridership annu12 ally over the next decade. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Randall Ehrlich, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Cheradi Diaz, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Linda J. Kevins, J.), dated April 22, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award, reinstated the arbitrator's award and confirmed that award, and denied so much of a cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator's award.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award is denied and so much of the cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator's award is granted.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Golden Earth Chiropractic &amp; Acupuncture, PLLC, as Assignee of Segundo Campoverde v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of New York</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-1370 S C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award is denied and so much of the cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator's award is granted.</p><p>We incidentally note that a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitration award is a special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 4, and must terminate in a judgment, rather than an order (<i>see</i> CPLR 411).</p><p>Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 25, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Davis and others vs. The President and Trustees of the Village of Menasha and others.

*Mil of Exceptions, by whom, to be settled.*

1 This court has no power to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause tried at the circuit court, where the judge hefore whom the trial was had died before the bill was settled; nor under any other circumstances.

2, It is'the practice in this state for the judge before whom the cause was tried, if living, to settle the bill of exceptions, even after the expiration of his term o f office; and there seems to be no objection to this practice. Per Com, J.

*195Cole, J.

This is an application to this court to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause appealed to tbis court, or for suck other relief in tbe premises as the court may tbink proper to grant

The cause was tried before the late Judge Wheeler at the September term of the circuit court for Winnebago county, 1863. The time for serving and settling the bill of exceptions was extended by yarious orders until after the decease of the circuit judge. We know of no provision of the statutes which authorizes this court to settle a bill of exceptions, and we not think we have the power to do it under the common law practice. According to that practice it is of course essential that the bill of exceptions be settled and signed by the judge who tried the cause. See also sec. 12, chap. 264, Laws of 1860. He knows what took place on the trial, what questions of law were raised and decided, and seems to be the most suitable person to settle the exceptions for the review of the appellate court. In this state it has been the common practice for the judge who tried the cause to settle the bill of exceptions even after his term of office, and we causee no objection to his doing so. But, as already observed, no power is given this court by statute to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause tried at the circuit, in any contingency.

At the same time it seems desirable, in order to prevent a failure of justice, that the legislature make some provision for the settlement of a bill of exceptions in the case of the decease of the circuit judge who tried the cause, or his removal from the state before the same is settled. In such a case, the bill of exceptions might perhaps be settled before this court, or the circuit court, or a judge thereof, upon affidavits and the minutes of the judge who tried the cause, if such minutes could be obtained. It seems to us desirable that some such provision should be made; and this suggestion is made for the purpose of calling the attention of the legislature to the subject. See *Morse v. Evans,*6 How. Pr. R., 445; *Milvehal v. Milward, 2**196Duer, 607; *Law v. Jackson,*8 Cow., 746. As tbe law now stands, we do not tbink we bave any power to settle tbe bill of exceptions.

*By the Court.*— -Tbe application is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

REGGIE WILLIAMS

- SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 136 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1965

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., on behalf of and as next friend 

of J.F.D., a minor,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

J.F.D., a minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELANIE A. SHEKITA, Individually and as a Wake County NC 

Assistant District Attorney for the State of North Carolina; 

MICHELLE SAVAGE, individually and as a Police Detective for 

the Cary North Carolina Police Department; DANIELLE DOYLE, 

individually and as a Wake County North Carolina Department 

of Health and Human Services Child Protective Services 

Social Worker; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE, individually and as a Wake 

County North Carolina Family Court Judge; MIKE EASLEY, 

individually and as Governor of the State of North Carolina; 

BEVERLY PERDUE, individually and as Governor of the State of 

North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00504-H)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
2

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s text order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in a 

closed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not 

timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

May 5, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2016.* 

Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2335 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to narrow the scope of the 

limitation on liability provided under section 230 of that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2021 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to narrow the 

scope of the limitation on liability provided under section 

230 of that Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Don’t Push My But5 tons Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON IMMUNITY. 

7 Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 

8 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2335 IS

1 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

3 other provision of this subsection, and subject 

4 to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the pro5 tection provided under paragraph (1) or (2) 

6 shall not apply with respect to a provider of an 

7 interactive computer service that— 

8 ‘‘(i) collects information regarding the 

9 habits, preferences, or beliefs of a user of 

10 the service; and 

11 ‘‘(ii) uses an automated function to 

12 deliver content to the user described in 

13 clause (i) that corresponds with the habits, 

14 preferences, or beliefs identified as a result 

15 of the action taken under that clause with 

16 respect to that user. 

17 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) 

18 shall not apply to a situation in which— 

19 ‘‘(i) a user of an interactive computer 

20 service uses an automated function to de21 liver content to that user; or 

22 ‘‘(ii) subject to subparagraph (C), a 

23 user of an interactive computer service 

24 knowingly and intentionally elects to reVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:03 Jul 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2335.IS S2335

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2335 IS

1 ceive the content described in subpara2 graph (A)(ii). 

3 ‘‘(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—A provider of 

4 an interactive computer service shall have the 

5 burden of proving by clear and convincing evi6 dence under subparagraph (B)(ii) that a user of 

7 the interactive computer service knowingly and 

8 intentionally elected to receive the content de9 scribed in subparagraph (A)(ii).’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
RUSSELL K. SIMARD,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2755

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Russell K. Simard, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, 

Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-32055 and 333-32057) pertaining to the PJ America, Inc., 1996
Stock Ownership Incentive Plan and Non-Employee Directors 1996 Incentive Plan of
our report dated February 8, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of PJ America, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
February 26, 2001