alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Citadel Environmental Group, Inc., form 10K-SB, Exhibit 16

                  SCHUMACHER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                     12835 EAST ARAPAHOE ROAD
                       TOWER II, SUITE 110
                    ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112
                                 

November 1, 1997

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

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by Citadel Environment Group, Inc.
(Copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the
Commission, pursuant to Item 8 of Form 10-KSB, as part of the
Company's Form 10-KSB report for the year ending December 31, 1996. 
We agree with the statements concerning our firm in such Form 10-
KSB.

     Sincerely
     SCHUMACHER & ASSOCIATES,
INC



<PAGE>                CITADEL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
                           FORM 10-KSB
              FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996

ITEM 8.CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON 
       ACCOUNTING  AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

On October 28, 1996 the Board of Directors received notice of the
resignation of Schumacher & Associates, Inc.  as the Company's
auditors due to the relocation of the Company's corporate offices. 
For each of the past two years, the report of Schumacher &
Associates, Inc on the Company's financial statements did not
include an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, nor was it
modified as to uncertainties, audit scope, or accounting
principles.   

To the best of our knowledge and belief during the 24 months
preceding the resignation of Schumacher & Associates, Inc as our
auditors, there existed no disagreements relating to any matter of
accounting principles or practices, financial statement
disclosures, auditing scope or procedure, or compliance with
applicable rules or the commission, which problems, if not resolved
to the satisfaction of Schumacher & Associates, Inc would have
caused them to make reference to the subject matter of any
disagreements in connection with their report.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER A. HUDSON,

Plaintiff,

V.

NANCY A. BERRVHILL,

ACTING COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:I8-cv-487

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Jolson

ORDER

1 his case is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Remand this case to the Commissioner

of Social Security. (Doc. 11). The partiesjointly stipulate that this matter should be remanded to

the Commissioner ofSocial Security for further proceedings, pursuant to Sentence Four ol'Scction

205 ofthe Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §405(g), and to enterJudgment pursuant to Rule 58 ofthe

Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure'.

Upon remand, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative Law

Judge s decision. The Commissioner will conduct further proceedings and develop the

administrative record as necessary to determine whether Plaintiffis under adisability as defined by

the Social Security Act, hold a new hearing, and then issue a new decision.

Pursuant to Sha/ala Schae/er, 509 U.S. 292, 302-03 (1993). a sentence four remand is a final

judgment, and the court should direct the clerk to enterjudgment on aseparate document, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, remanding the case to the Social Security Administration.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Joint Motion to Remand, this action is remanded for further

proceedings. The Clerk ofthis Court shall terminate Document 11, enter final judgment, and close

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Georse C. Smith

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7252

ANTHONY DAWAIN SHAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00593-MSD-FBS)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dawain Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dawain Shaw 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). 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 Shaw has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11392 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JEREMY CLAY WILCOX , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 42

- 1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jeremy Clay Wilcox
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Wilcox h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11392 Document: 00512750780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014No. 13

- 11392

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-11392 Document: 00512750780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
Vantwain LaShun STOKES v. STATE

CR-15-0887

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. T.B., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4196

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 08, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.

VILLANTI, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Frank ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Denied March 22, 2018

Frank Adams, Cross City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

November 21,2016 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

BY CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: In the matter ofRidan Investments, Inc.; 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1082 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

RECEI\/ED 

NOV 2 8 2016 

HEARING DOCKET 

I hereby file my Notice of Appearance in this matter. Going forward, I will be the 

attorney of record and all communications for the Federal Aviation Administration 

should be addressed to: Charles Raley, FAA Enforcement Division, Western Team, P.O. 

Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone (310) 725-7108, fax (310) 725-

6816, email: charles.raley@faa.gov. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

CJ[2 

Charles Raley, Senior Attorney 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

cc: by Certified Mail: 

Lawrence M. Burek, Esq. 

550 North Parkcenter Drive, Suite 204 

Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CRAIG DAVALOS, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-611

Plaintiff,

 Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

GREG MORGAN, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff Craig Davalos filed the pro se complaint in this action against defendants Greg 

Morgan, John Borne, the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and three John Doe 

defendants on August 28, 2018. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not appear at telephonic status 

conferences held on May 12, 2020 and July 2, 2020. On July 2, 2020, the Court directed 

plaintiff to show cause, in writing and within 15 days of the date of its Order, why the Court

should not dismiss the action against defendants for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 51). To date, 

more than 15 days later, plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

“Federal courts possess certain ‘inherent powers . . . to manage their own affairs so as to 

achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. 

Haeger, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 

630-631 (1962)). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause warrants exercise of 

the Court’s inherent power and dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against defendants pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute this matter. See Link, 370 U.S. at 630–31; Jourdan 

v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109–10 (6th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

This case be DISMISSED with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00611-KLL Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/22/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 172
2 

Civ. P. 41(b). 

Date: __________________ _______________________ 

 Karen L. Litkovitz 

 United States Magistrate Judge

7/22/2020

Case: 1:18-cv-00611-KLL Doc #: 52 Filed: 07/22/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 173
Bobby L. MAGWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4443

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 8, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ricky VARNER v. STATE

CR-15-1120

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Form S-8 (No. 333-53329) pertaining to Carmike Cinemas, Inc.'s 1998 Class A
Stock Option Plan, Form S-8 (No. 333-85194) pertaining to Carmike Cinemas, Inc.
2002 Stock Plan, and Form S-4 (No. 333-77333) pertaining to the registration of
$200 million of its 9 3/8% Series B Senior Subordinated Notes due 2009 of our
report dated March 27, 2002 with respect the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2002
Robert Lee HOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D16-3952 2D16-3953

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000798538
<NAME> ADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                             280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   280
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,166,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,903,567
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,069,348)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,338,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             857,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,155,933)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,155,933)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,195,933)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
[662 NYS2d 982]

#### Whitehouse Estates, Inc., Appellant, v Elizabeth J. Post, Also Known as Elizabeth J. P. Cundari, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 4, 1997

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Peter B. Reiss,*New York City, for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered February 16, 1996 reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the second affirmative defense is stricken.

Defendant, a residential tenant of apartment premises at 350 East 52nd Street, Manhattan, vacated the premises in September 1990, prior to the expiration of the lease on December 31, 1990. In this action for rent arrears, Civil Court *559summarily dismissed the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff landlord had failed to raise a factual issue with respect to its duty to mitigate damages under the lease.

As recently reaffirmed by a unanimous Court of Appeals in *Holy Props. v Cole Prods.*(87 NY2d 130, 133), the rule in this State remains that "[office the lease is executed, the lessee’s obligation to pay rent is fixed according to its terms and a landlord is under no obligation or duty to the tenant to relet, or attempt to relet abandoned premises in order to minimize damages”. In rejecting the opportunity to adopt the contract rationale of mitigation of damages, the Court pointed to the overriding benefit of applying "established precedents” in the field of real property law *(Holy Props. v Cole Prods., supra,*at 134).

While a *commercial*tenancy was the subject of the litigation in *Holy Props, (supra),*neither the language nor reasoning employed in the decision signals an intent on the part of the Court of Appeals to abrogate the no-mitigation rule in the context of *residential*landlord and tenant relationships*
      *(Duda v Thompson,*169 Misc 2d 649 [Sup Ct, Westchester County]). Nor have we been referred to any case decided by the Appellate Division expressly adopting a duty to mitigate in residential cases *(see, Wallis v Falken-Smith,*136 AD2d 506; *Syndicate Bldg. Corp. v Lorber,*128 AD2d 381; *but see, Paragon Indus. v Williams,*122 Misc 2d 628 [App Term, 2d Dept]). Accordingly, we follow and apply the settled higher authority which relieves a landlord of any obligation to mitigate damages where the tenant has abandoned the premises prior to the expiration of the lease term.

Ostrau, P. J., Parness and McCooe, JJ., concur.

The Court cites with approval to *Becar v Flues*(64 NY 518), an 1876 case where the lessee of a house died and the estate, after vacating the premises, was held responsible for the remainder of the lease term.
file:///P|/...%20Versions/Monroe/Follow%20Up%20Questions%20about%20Monroes%20FGD%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20System.txt[1/21/2010 9:17:58 AM]

From: Kurtis Blohm

To: brownjl@dteenegy.com

Date: 12/1/2009 4:37 PM

Subject: Follow Up Questions about Monroe's FGD Wastewater Treatment System

Jason,

Thank you very much for your time on the phone today. I have two follow up questions for you:

1. What is the typical flow rate and the duration of the flow through the wastewater treatment system? We discussed 

that the flow is, on average, about 90 gpm for any 24 hour period, but it would help to know the typical flow when the 

treatment system is operating.

2. What pollutant concentration levels is the system achieving? That is, what are typical effluent concentrations for the 

pollutants you provided on the phone? 

For question 2, it may be easier for us to discuss this over the phone, since I suspect this information may be 

confidential. In that case, do not hesitate to call me during normal business hours (8 AM - 5 PM).

Regards,

Kurt

Kurt Blohm

Chemical Engineer

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

14555 Avion Pkwy, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 633-1675
Rafael MARQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-68

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Jeremy Charles CHRISTIE v. STATE

CR-15-0785

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1997

<CASH>                                              135,399
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    414,352 
<PP&E>                                            1,178,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                      973,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      653,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               678,520
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        653,974
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    171,142
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   52,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (208,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (208,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Health Realty Income Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles F. Boyle, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Trust, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust at the end of, and for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ Charles F. BoyleVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 14, 2006


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