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


                                   Exhibit 15






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


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that Acme Metals Incorporated has included our report dated July
20, 1999 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards
No. 71) in the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and in its Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627). We are also aware of our
responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
July 20, 1999
Jahi Amadi HASANATI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jason WOOD, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0361

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 9, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as duplicative of the relief sought in case number 2D17-3642. Appellees' motion to strike and appellant's motion for extension of time to serve the initial brief are denied as moot.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
From: Scott Brown <sbrown@cleanair.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:07 PM

To: Green, David A.

Cc: putney.david@epa.gov

Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Mr. Green,

One more question regarding the combination of CARB 428 

and 429 and the designated impinger trains.

428 calls for 4 impingers, all modified Greenberg Smith 

with the first impinger being a knock out impinger,

second containing 100 ml DI H2O, third empty and fourth 

silica gel.

429 calls for 4 impingers, all modified Greenberg Smith 

with the first two impingers each containing 100 ml of 

3mM NaHCO3 / 2.4 mM Na2CO3, third empty and fourth 

silica gel.

I have been planning on combining these by using four 

impingers: knockout, modified, modified, modified with 

impingers 1 and 2 continaing the NaHCO3 / Na2CO3 

solution, the third empty and the fourth silica gel.

Is this acceptable?

Scott Brown

CleanAir

847-654-4544

-----Original Message-----

From: Green, David A. [mailto:green@rti.org]

Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:03 AM

To: sbrown@cleanair.com

Cc: putney.david@epa.gov

Subject: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Mr. Brown:

We recommend doing the five minute soak to ensure the 

best quality data.

Even though CARB 428/429 don't require it, those 

methods also use different solvents so it makes sense 

for the procedures to be somewhat different.

David Green

RTI International

919.316.3412

www.rti.org

-----Original Message-----

From: Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@cleanair.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:51 PM

To: Green, David A.

Subject: RE: solvents for M428/429

Thank you for your quick response.

To verify. CARB Methods 428 and 429 call for rinsing 

all components of the train three times with the 
recovery solvents but do not require a 5 minute soak 

(in triplicate) of the connecting glassware with the 

final rinse solvent as Method 23 does.

Since we are using CARB 428 / 429 per the ICR should we 

follow the

method(s) and not soak, just rinse?

Scott Brown

Project Manager

CleanAir

-----Original Message-----

From: Green, David A. [mailto:green@rti.org]

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:43 PM

To: Scott Brown

Subject: RE: solvents for M428/429

Mr. Brown:

The use of acetone/toluene for recovery is acceptable. 

Basically, you should follow Method 23 recovery but may 

skip the methylene chloride step.

Please let me know if any other questions arise.

David Green

RTI International

919.316.3412

www.rti.org

--
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1998 REPORT ON FORM
10-Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,087,905
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,310,254
<PP&E>                                         716,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                 423,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,771,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          629,655
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        966
<COMMON>                                         3,272
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,137,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,771,753
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               220,997
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,216,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (995,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (995,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (995,147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)<F1>
<FN>
PER SHARE DATA HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT A ONE-FOR-FIVE REVERSE SPLIT
OF THE COMPANY'S OUTSTANDING COMMON STOCK WHICH WAS EFFECTED ON
MAY 13, 1998.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, $30,464.00 in U.S. Currency, Defendant. v. Veronica Ana Maria RAMIREZ, Claimant-Appellant,

No. 15-55484

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Frank Kortum, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Veronica Ana Maria Ramirez, Pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Veronica Ana Maria Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) for $30,464 in U.S. currency that was seized from Ramirez’s residence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *United States v. $133,420,00 in U.S. Currency,*672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, in light of the evidence submitted by the government and the facts properly deemed admitted due to Ramirez’s failure to respond timely to the government’s requests for admission, Ramirez failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact'as to whether there was no substantial connection between the seized currency and illegal drug activity. *See*18 U.S.C. § 988(c)(1) (“[T]he burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (providing that a matter is deemed admitted unless party serves timely answer or objection to request for admission); *Conlon v. United States,*474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007) (‘‘Unanswered requests for admissions may be relied on as the basis for granting summary judgment.”); *United States v. Currency, U.S. $1⁄82,500.00,*283 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002) (funds must be traceable to drug trafficking taking into account all facts cumulatively); *United States v. $22,474.00 in U.S. Currency,*246 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Evidence of a prior drug conviction is probative of probable cause.”); *United States v. $93,685.61 in U.S. Currency,*730 F.2d 571, 572 (9th Cir. 1984) (currency forfeitable where found in the same room as drug paraphernalia).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX PARTE Susie Lee MCLEMORE

1160276 (CR-15-0977)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

3-10-2017

Cert. denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GOZZO DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida corporation,

Appellant,

v.

ANNE M. ESKER, and CLAY LANE RENTAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

a Nevada limited partnership,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-3296

[October 29, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; G. Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502005CA011607XXXXMBAA.

Michael A. Monteverde and Kali Lauren Sinclair of Zinober, Diana & 

Monteverde, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Steven Ellison of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, West Palm Beach, 

for appellee Anne M. Esker.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., WARNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Randall GausmanRandall GausmanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133776 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133776 COA: 274455 Kent CC: 04-002925-FC WILLIAM FITZGERALD JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 28, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

86) ll-B-60 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:31A M Sheet 86 of 99 
P.2 

TI -rV(*0 

A-88-02 

Information on health or risk assessment was removed from the 

docket. This information was compiled before the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (1990) but was not used in the development of 

the chromium NESHAP,
#### Trayvon C. HARBOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. DHILLON, Doctor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15710

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 28, 2017

Trayvon C. Harbor, Pro Se

Derrek J. Lee, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

• Trayvon C. Harbor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harbor’s deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Dhillon because Harbor’s allegations and the documents attached to the operative complaint fail to show that Dr. Dhillon purposefully acted or failed to respond to Harbor’s pain. *See Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) (deliberate indifference may be shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and ... harm caused by the indifference”; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); *see also id.*at 1116 n.1 (exhibits attached to complaint may be considered in determining whether dismissal was proper).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Harbor’s second amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “a district court may dismiss without leave where ... amendment would be futile”).

*613The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harbor’s motions for sanctions because Harbor failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 11. *See Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI,*757 F.3d 870, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the standard of review and requirements for sanctions under Rule 11).

We reject as without merit Harbor’s contention that the district court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and discriminated against Harbor.

We treat Harbor’s exhibits, filed on September 16, 2016, as a motion to supplement the record, and deny the motion as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STATE of Louisiana v. Corenza Kendell KELLY, Jr.

NO. 2017-KP-0755

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied. Moot. See also La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(D) (added by 2017 La. Acts 277, eff. August 1, 2017).
Jennymar PIZARRO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

Jennymar Pizarro-Garcia, Quincy, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the May 19, 2017 judgments and sentences rendered in Case No. 2016-CF-005744-D-O, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
D.R. and D.R. v. CLEBURNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160551

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6312

CHARLES JONES, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THEODORE PURNELL; REICLYN, Captain; EUGENE

NUTH; J. REVELL, Captain; J. STROCKE, Lieutenant; M. DIGGS, Major; L. CARTER, Sergeant;

SERGEANT WATKINS; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; JOHN

PARKER, Adjustment Hearing Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-

645-L)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Purnell, No. CA95-645-L (D. Md. Feb 20, 1997). 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# TIME AND DATE:

11:30 a.m., Thursday, February 17, 2022.

# PLACE:

                        Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (                        *www.ncua.gov*) and access the provided webcast link.                    

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Board Briefing, Share Insurance Fund Quarterly Report.

2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Asset Threshold for Determining the Appropriate Supervisory Office.

3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Prompt Corrective Action.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-03285 Filed 2-11-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11



                       OPTION CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATIONS OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       (In thousands, except share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED        SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                             June 30,                 June 30,
                                         1997        1996         1997        1996
                                       --------    --------     --------    --------
<S>                                    <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>
Net income...........................  $   434     $   867      $ 1,356     $ 1,716
                                       =======     =======      =======     =======

Weighted average shares issued.......   10,638      10,483       10,601      10,482
Additional shares included assuming
  exercise of stock options using
  treasury stock method..............      150         258          167         199
                                       -------     -------      -------     -------
Weighted average common shares and
  common share equivalents...........   10,788      10,741       10,768      10,681
                                       =======     =======      =======     =======

Net income per common and common
  equivalent share...................  $  0.04     $  0.08      $  0.13     $  0.16
                                       =======     =======      =======     =======

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(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.

Date:
November 12, 2007



By:

/s/ Richard A. RossRichard A. RossChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Vitalstate, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Giles, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

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

/s/ Terry Giles
-------------------------------
Name:   Terry Giles
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   April 15, 2005
Elena DIAMANTE-MOLL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kevin J. RAMBOSK, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3007

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.