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



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Forms S-8 (No. 33-13723 and No. 33-48011) pertaining to the stock option plan of
Carmike Cinemas, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-53329) pertaining to Carmike Cinemas,
Inc.'s 1998 Class A Stock Option 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 February 17, 2000, except for Note 5, as to
which the date is April 10, 2000, with respect to 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, 1999.


                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                 ---------------------


Columbus, Georgia
April 10, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          77,751
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               128,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    721,490
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          78,609
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            79,901
<LOANS>                                      2,843,764
<ALLOWANCE>                                     29,751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,089,428
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,539,650
<SHORT-TERM>                                    22,397
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            150,492
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     366,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,089,428
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 57,893
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,210
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,998
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                73,101
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              35,074
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,641
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           37,460
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,800
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  93
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 24,792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,713
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,807
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.89
<LOANS-NON>                                     25,116
<LOANS-PAST>                                     8,054
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                29,117
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,384
<RECOVERIES>                                       218
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               29,751
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            19,890
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          9,861
<FN>
<F1>EPS PRIMARY TAG REPRESENTS EPS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
| /s/      Robert H. Schottenstein               |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Robert      H. Schottenstein                   |
| Chairman      of the Board, Chief Executive    |
| Officer      (principal executive officer) and |
| President                                      |

----

| /s/      Phillip G. Creek                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Phillip      G. Creek                                  |
| Executive      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
| (principal      financial officer) andDirector         |

----

| /s/      J. Thomas Mason                       |
|------------------------------------------------|
| J.      Thomas Mason                           |
| Executive      Vice President, General Counsel |
| and      Director                              |

----

| /s/      Joseph A. Alutto |
|---------------------------|
| Joseph      A. Alutto     |
| Director                  |

----

| /s/Friedrich      K. M. Böhm |
|-----------------------------------|
| Friedrich      K. M. Böhm    |
| Director                          |

----

| /s/      Yvette McGree Brown |
|------------------------------|
| Yvette      McGee Brown      |
| Director                     |

----

| /s/      Thomas D. Igoe |
|-------------------------|
| Thomas      D. Igoe     |
| Director                |

----

| /s/      Jeffrey H. Miro |
|--------------------------|
| Jeffrey      H. Miro     |
| Director                 |

----

| /s/      Norman L. Traeger |
|----------------------------|
| Norman      L. Traeger     |
| Director                   |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Richard Wagner,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Chantilas Cincy Properties, LLC, et al.,

 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00317

Judge Michael R. Barrett

ORDER 

Pursuant to notification by counsel for Plaintiff on August 14, 2019 that this 

matter is settled; 

It is ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Court explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement 

reached by the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 _s/ Michael R. Barrett_____

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court 

Case: 1:18-cv-00317-MRB Doc #: 12 Filed: 08/14/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 46
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,496

EX PARTE JASON LYNN CHANNEL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F1017526-A IN THE 145 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM NACOGDOCHES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because the plea agreement cannot be

followed. 

Trial counsel and the prosecutor both filed affidavits with the trial court. Based on those

affidavits, the trial court determined that applicant plead guilty pursuant to an agreement that he
2

would be considered for shock probation if he did not have any behavior problems while

incarcerated. This agreement is unenforceable due to Applicant’s previous prison sentence. 

Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. F1017526-A in the 145 Judicial District th

Court of Nacogdoches County is set aside, and applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff

of Nacogdoches County to answer the charge against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the TexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: February 9, 2011

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996, AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          33,849
<SECURITIES>                                    53,389
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,423
<PP&E>                                          22,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,283)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,872
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       371,406
<OTHER-SE>                                    (92,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334,556
<SALES>                                         45,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,307
<CGS>                                           12,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (4,060)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,233
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,471
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

DAWN M. RODEN,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:19-CV-239

vs. District Judge Michael J. Newman

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER (1) GRANTING THE MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE OF ATTORNEY FEES 

FILED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (DOC. NO. 20); (2) REQUIRING THE 

COMMISSIONER TO REMIT ATTORNEY FEES TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(B)(1), IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,000.00; (3) 

REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO REMIT TO PLAINTIFF $3,400.00 IN 

ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT; AND, THE 

CASE REMAINS TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT

______________________________________________________________________________

This case is before the Court upon the Motion For Allowance Of Attorney Fees 

filed by Plaintiff’s attorney (Doc. No. 20) and the Commissioner’s Response (Doc. No. 

21). 

The Motion seeks an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the 

total amount of $13,000.00. The Commissioner does not object to this amount but 

correctly notes that Plaintiff’s counsel must remit to Plaintiff $3,400.00, which equals the 

amount he received in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See Gisbrecht 

v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). In the absence of objection by the Commissioner, 

the Motion and supporting Exhibits establish that an award of attorney fees is reasonable 

and warranted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the amount Plaintiff’s counsel seeks.
2

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Motion For Allowance Of Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff’s attorney 

(Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED; 

2. The Commissioner shall remit attorney fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), in the amount of $13,000.00; 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall remit to Plaintiff $3,400.00; and

4. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 18, 2021 s/Michael J. Newman

Hon. Michael J. Newman

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Consolidated  Balance Sheets and Consolidated  Statements of Operations found on
pages 2  through  5 of the  Company's  Form  10-Q for the  year-to-date,  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000882261
<NAME>                                         Financial Data Schedule
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,833
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  68,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         38,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       164
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,559
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               88,297
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,082
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

To: United States Department of Ener gy

From: Erica Logan, Information Technology Industry Council

Date: June 25, 2014

Re: Ex Parte Communication

On Wednesday June 25 th , e nergy efficiency experts held a meeting with representatives of the US Department of Energy (DOE) to discuss DOE’s Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for battery chargers

. Industry and DOE representatives had a general exchange on battery types, ways to apply the battery charging requirements and possible technical factors that could affect

values over time.

The following individuals attended the meeting in -person:

Ashley Armstrong, DOE Michael Kido, DOE Erica Logan, ITI Rona Newmark, EMC Jay Taylor, Schneider-Electric Roger Tipley, Schneider-Electric Gary Verdun, Dell Henry Wong, Intel

The following individual attended via teleconference:
Mark Hollenbeck, HP

Sincerely,

Erica Logan Information Technology Industry Council
#### Holland v. The State.

Criminal Law: *Carrying vjeapons.*

The carrying of army sized pistols, such as are commonly used in the military and naval service of the United States, is not prohibited by the laws of Arkansas.

APPEAL from *Tell*Circuit Court.

Hon. W* W. Mansfield, Circuit Judge.

ENGLISH, C. J. :

James Holland was indicted in the Circuit Court of Yell county, for carrying a pistol as a weapon.

*561On the trial but one witness was examined. He stated, in substance, that the first time he ever saw defendant, was on the 1st of October, 1875, in Yell county. He had two large sized six shooting pistols, one of them a Remmington, navy size and loaded, and the other a Colt’s army pistol. The pistols were such as are commonly used in the United States military and naval service. Defendant was carrying them in.his saddle-bags, and stated he was from Texas. Witness did not know whether he was on a journey or not.

Upon this evidence, the defendant asked the court to charge the jury that if they found from the evidence that the pistols, proven to have been carried, were army sized pistols, and were such as are commonly used in the United States military and naval service, they must acquit defendant.

The court refused this instruction, defendant was convicted, a new trial refused him, he took a bill of exceptions and appealed.

The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as moved by appellant. *Fife*v. *State,*31 Ark., 455: *Wilson*v. *State,*M. S.

Reversed, and remanded for new trial.
Joseph FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2252

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Joseph Franklin, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1856

In re: SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK, 

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:18-cv-00448-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00501-RAJLRL; 2:18-cv-00457-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00500-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00433-RAJ-LRL; 

2:18-cv-00445-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00446-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv00595-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00596-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00620-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00609-

RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00293-RAJ-LRL; 2:18-cv-00301-RAJ-LRL) 

Submitted: August 18, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Susan Neal Matousek, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Susan Neal Matousek has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order 

directing that her prior mandamus petition in case No. 21-1413, In re Matousek, qualify as 

a landmark case to ensure a police reform bill is enacted, that whistleblowers like her not 

be hurt, that she be given time to discuss her cases with a panel of judges, and that she be 

given an opportunity to have oral argument. We conclude that Matousek is not entitled to 

mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (internal quotation marks 

and brackets omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re 

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and this court does not have 

jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Ct. of 

Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam). 

The relief sought by Matousek is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 

we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Heather L. ROMINGER, f/k/a Heather L. Campbell, Appellant, v. Johnny R. CAMPBELL, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1649

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2018

Mark Lee Smith, Pensacola, for Appellant.

William F. Duane, Mill Valley, CA, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J. and, Bilbrey, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.83


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2


TO


SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”), dated as of January 12,
2009, amends that certain Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
into on March 24, 2008, by and between Force Protection, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Lenna Ruth Macdonald (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, in
order to correct a “scrivener’s error in the language in Section 5 of the
Agreement, the Company and the Executive desire to enter into this Amendment to
amend certain provisions of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
for and in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and
agreements in the Agreement and herein, the Company and the Executive hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Capitalized Terms. 
Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.


 


2.                                       Section 5 of the Agreement is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:


 


“5.                                 Payments Upon Non-Qualifying
Termination of Employment.  If the Executive’s employment with the
Company shall terminate by reason of a Nonqualifying Termination, then the
Company shall pay to the Executive (or the Executive’s beneficiary or estate)
within thirty (30) days following the Date of Termination, a lump-sum cash amount
equal to the Accrued Amounts (other than the amount described in Section 3(a)(ii) if
the Executive is terminated by the Company for Cause) and provide the Other
Benefits.”


 


3.                                       Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed (including by facsimile transmission confirmed
promptly thereafter by actual delivery of executed counterparts) in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


4.                                       Governing Law.  This
Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with,
the internal laws of the State of South Carolina without regard to the
principle of conflicts of laws.


 


5.                                       Headings.  Section headings
are for convenience only and shall not be considered a part of this Amendment.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment No. 2 to
be executed, effective as of the date first
written above.


 


 


	
   

  	
  FORCE PROTECTION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Charles Mathis

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Charles Mathis

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Financial
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Lenna Ruth Macdonald

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Lenna Ruth Macdonald

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Strategy Officer, General Counsel & Corporate
  Secretary