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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

      Report and Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report dated February 25, 2005, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of The Pepsi  Bottling Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries, included the related financial statement schedule as of December
25, 2004, and for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended
December 25, 2004, included in this Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits. In
our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in
all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60428, 333-79357, 333-79369, 333-79375, 333-79365, 333-80647, 333-69622,
333-73302, 333-100786, 333-117894) on Form S-8 of The Pepsi Bottling Group,
Inc. of our reports (incorporated by reference in the December 25, 2004, annual
report on Form 10-K of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.) dated February 25, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of The Pepsi Bottling Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries, as of December 25, 2004 and December 27, 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of operation, cash flows, and changes in
shareholders' equity for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended
December 25, 2004, and our report on the related financial statement schedule,
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 25, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 25, 2004, dated February 25, 2005 (which
appears above). Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to
the adoption of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 02-16, 'Accounting by a
Customer (Including a Reseller) for Certain Consideration Received from a
Vendor," as of December 29, 2002.

/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
February 25,2005
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Mfg. LLC (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31,
2003 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.

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

Dated:  May 15, 2003

                                     /s/      James H. Tate
                                     ---------------------------------
                                     James H. Tate
                                     Senior Vice President and
                                     Chief Financial Officer of the
                                     Company
Tate Allister PEDERSON, petitioner, v. Chad PRINGLE, Warden.

No. 16-6928.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
SECURITY UNIVERSITY, LLC, et al., petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY CERTIFICATION CONSORTIUM, INC.

No. 16-352.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

*625Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
*1327.*

#### Johnson v. The State.

Hill, C. J.

A rule nisi granted on a motion for a new trial set the hearing for a fixed date, and directed that the motion be served on the opposite party “five days prior to the hearing.” On the date fixed for the hearing, the trial judge granted an order postponing the hearing of the motion for a new trial to a later date, making no other order as to service. The motion for a new trial was not served five days before the date fixed for the hearing in the first order, but it was duly served five days prior to the date as fixed in the subsequent order of postponement. *Eeld,*that the judgment dismissing the motion for a new *851trial, because the opposite party was not served therewith as required by the original rule nisi, was erroneous. *Judgment reversed.*

Motion for new trial, from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell. July 14, 1908.

Submitted October 6,

Decided October 12, 1908.

P. *D. Rich, J. H. Gilpin,*for plaintiff in error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
                                    Exhibit 27

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-K AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                      1,000

<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                            4,789
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    38,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        271
<INVENTORY>                                                      41,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 97,301
<PP&E>                                                           60,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   29,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  131,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            44,993
<BONDS>                                                           3,911
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                         41,464
<OTHER-SE>                                                       39,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    131,884
<SALES>                                                         116,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                122,528
<CGS>                                                            63,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    64,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 20,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (10,945)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     (4,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (6,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (6,745)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.49)



</TABLE>
Jose CAVAZOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6862.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Joshua ABELLERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7178.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of PLXTechnology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Michael J. Salameh,****Chief Executive Officer****of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and 

the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,"filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: May 4, 2005
                          /s/ Michael J.Salameh	 
Michael J. Salameh, Chief Executive Officer
SEC Exhibit






Exhibit 10.12



      








March 22, 2016


Mr. Art McLean
Mart Management, Inc.
P.O. Box 664
Derry, NH 03038


Regarding:  Notice of Termination of Lease for 138B Sherrel Avenue, Jackson, Georgia Property


Dear Art,


Per our discussion, pursuant to Section 2 of the lease agreement, as amended, between American Power Group Corporation and Mart Management, Inc., please consider this formal notice of termination of the lease for the above referenced property located in Jackson, Georgia, effective immediately. We understand our obligation to continue to pay rent for the period specified in section 2 of the lease and our responsibilities pursuant to Section 3 of the lease, and will work cooperatively with Mart over the coming months to secure an acceptable new tenant for the property.


Please let me know of any questions.






Sincerely,
/s/ Charles E. Coppa
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,567
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,212
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               290,609
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        922
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        163,906
<ALLOWANCE>                                        360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,397
<DEPOSITS>                                     178,311
<SHORT-TERM>                                   266,396
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,531
<LONG-TERM>                                     13,495
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           425
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 484,397
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,734
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               25,222
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,956
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,032
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,924
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      147
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,410)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,093)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (3,093)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,859)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    0.79
<LOANS-NON>                                        285
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   213
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      147
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  360
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               360
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2494

In re: CHARLES A. DAVIS , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 5:11

- cr - 00032

- RLV

- DSC

- 1 )

Submitted : February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019

Before KING , THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Charles A. Davis , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus setting aside his conviction and sentence or directing the district court to set aside his conviction and sentence. We conclude that Davis is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir 2018)

. Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petition er has a clea r right to the relief sought. South Carolina v. United States, 907
F

. 3d 742, 754 (4th Cir. 2018) . Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Davis is not ava ilable by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 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 decisiona l process.
PETITION DENIED
Alexis PEREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8829.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Martin P. Moore, Chief Financial 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August
11, 2006

| | /s/ Martin P. Moore 
| | --------------------
| | Martin P. MooreChief
| | Financial Officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 23, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1074

Lower Tribunal No. F95-22615

________________

Rudy Antonio Ramirez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler, Judge.

Rudy Antonio Ramirez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 20,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         2505695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   286972
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     125169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3185643
<PP&E>                                         3823287
<DEPRECIATION>                                (660220)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                14820535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           711598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         16152
<OTHER-SE>                                    13733508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  14820535
<SALES>                                         476591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                476591
<CGS>                                           618276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   618276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2160539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               59358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2336101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2336101)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
10.27**
 
 **DESCRIPTION
OF GENVEC, INC. 2005 ANNUAL BONUS CRITERIA**
 **AND
2004 ANNUAL BONUSES TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS**
 
 
 As
reported in the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement, dated April 27, 2004,
under the caption, “Compensation Committee Report,” all employees, including
named executive officers, are eligible for annual bonuses. The bonus for all
employees and executive officers, except for the President and Chief Executive
Officer, is based on the achievement of pre-determined (i) individual goals and
(ii) corporate goals. Each year, a maximum bonus pool is set aside for possible
distribution as bonuses in the first quarter of the next fiscal year.
  2005
annual bonuses will be determined by the achievement of both individual goals
and corporate goals, each of which will be given 50% weight in determining the
annual bonus. Based upon individual performance and accomplishments, the
Compensation Committee will award discretionary bonuses that fall within ranges
established by the Compensation Committee at the start of the year. Such ranges
are based on a range of percentages of employee’s salary, with those with higher
salary grades being eligible for a higher percentage of their salary to be paid
as a bonus. Individual goals are established for each employee subsequently
evaluated in each individual’s performance review. Corporate goals for 2005
relate to financing activities, progress in product development programs, the
establishment of new strategic alliances, and other business development
initiatives. Certain of these goals carry a higher weighting than others. The
bonus for the President and Chief Executive Officer is determined exclusively by
satisfaction of the corporate goals.
 
 The
Compensation Committee has approved bonuses for 2004 and awarded the following
bonus payments in the first quarter of 2005 to the Company’s named executive
officers:
 
 **Name
      and Prinicpal Position**
    **2004
      Bonus Payment**Paul
      H. Fischer, Ph.D.
    $64,014CEO
      and PresidentJeffrey
      W. Church
    $28,659CFO, 
      Treasurer and Corporate SecretaryE.
      Michael Egan
    $29,391Senior
      Vice President, Commercial DevelopmentC.
      Richter King, Ph.D.
    $37,318Senior
      Vice President, Research
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 21, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00911-CR

IN RE CHRISTOPHER KEITH HANDY, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

182nd District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1481109 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On November 13, 2019, relator Christopher Keith Handy filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains that the Honorable Danilo Lacayo, 
2 

presiding judge of the 182nd District Court of Harris County, denied his motion for 

a nunc pro tunc order for pre-trial jail time credit.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has 

no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the 

relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In 

re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). 

A nunc pro tunc order is appropriate to correct clerical errors in the judgment 

the trial court actually rendered, but not errors that were the result of judicial 

reasoning. Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The 

failure to award jail time credit in accordance with a mandatory statutory duty is a 

clerical error that may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. Ex parte Ybarra, 149 

S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). If the trial court fails to issue a nunc pro 

tunc order to award mandatory jail time credit, relief may be sought by petition for 

writ of mandamus. Id. at 149. 

It is a relator’s burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that relator is 

entitled to relief. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Relator has failed to do so. Relator has not attached 

any documents to his petition. Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a 

certified or sworn copy” of any order complained of, any other document showing 

the matter complained of, and every document that is material to relator’s claim for 

relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 

52.7(a)(1). Relator has not provided the proof necessary to show that the trial court 

violated a ministerial duty by denying his motion for a nunc pro tunc order. 
3 

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).