alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1





ClubCorp, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041, 333-57107, and
333-52612

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 24, 2001, related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




                                                           KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
May 3, 2001
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

TheBoard of Directors

American Skiing Company:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-48449)on Form S-8 of American Skiing Company of our report dated October 7,2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of American SkiingCompany and subsidiaries as of July 31, 2005 and 2004, and the relatedconsolidated statements of opeartions, shareholders’ deficit and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended July 31, 2005, whichreport appears in the July 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K ofAmerican Skiing Company.

 

Our report refers to theadoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 150, *Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics ofBoth Liabilities and Equity,* in the fiscal year ended July 25,2004.

 

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP          |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |
| Salt Lake City, Utah  |
| October 31, 2005 |

 

----
PHILLIPS AND JORDAN INV. CORP. v. GREUN MADAINN, INC.

No. COA07-1105.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Graham (06CVS26).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded to the trial court for disposition in accordance with the provisions set out herein.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1247/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1247/2014 of 19 November 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union            waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of United Kingdom         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1247/2014                     

# of 19 November 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of United                        Kingdom                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 November 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 370/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 370/2014 of 10 April 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 370/2014                     

# of 10 April 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 2014.

*For the Commission*,                           

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
SIDE
LETTER


 


	BIOSURFACE
                                         LIMITED

        Sand
        Hutton Applied Innovation Campus

        Sand
        Hutton

        York

        North
        Yorkshire

        YO41
        1LZ

        England
	 
	 	 
	ENHANCE
                                         SKIN PRODUCTS INC.

        50
        West Liberty Street

        Suite
        880

        Reno

        NV
        89501

        United
        States of America
	 


 


July
28, 2016


 


Re        
Enhance Skin Products Inc. (the “Company”)


 


Dear
Sirs


 


We
refer to the option agreement, dated 7 July 2016, between (1) BioSurface Limited (“BioSurface”) and (2) the
Company (the “Option Agreement”). This letter constitutes a side letter to the Option Agreement.


 


Save
as otherwise provided for in this letter, defined terms used in this letter shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the
Option Agreement.


 


We
the undersigned being all of the parties to the Option Agreement hereby agree and confirm that, in consideration for the participation
by each party hereto in the good faith negotiations in relation to the entry into an asset purchase agreement in relation to certain
assets owned by the Company, the Option Agreement shall be amended, in accordance with Clause 10.3 of the Option Agreement, by
the deletion of the current Clause 3.2 of the Option Agreement and its replacement with the following new Clause 3.2:


 


“3.2
      The Option shall lapse on 12 August 2016.”


 


This
letter may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which when executed and delivered shall be an original, but all the
counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 




    	 



    	 	 	 



    

 


This
letter shall be governed by the laws of England and Wales and the parties hereby irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the
courts of England and Wales in relation to any dispute arising from, or in connection with, this letter.


 


Yours
faithfully


 


	 

         

         

         

         

         
	 	 

         

         

         

         

         

	Duly authorised, for and on behalf of 

                                                                              BIOSURFACE LIMITED
	 	Duly
                                         authorised, for and on behalf of

        ENHANCE
        SKIN PRODUCTS INC.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 475/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 475/2013 of 15 May 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Agnello del Centro Italia (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 475/2013                     

# of 15 May 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Agnello del Centro                        Italia (PGI))                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006                              of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(2).

(2)Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Agnello del Centro Italia’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3).

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name                              should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 May 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.1.****Fresh meat (and offal)**U.K.

#### ITALYU.K.

Agnello del Centro Italia (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 197, 5.7.2012, p. 29.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3471 

To prohibit government-sponsored enterprises from making lobbying 

expenditures, political contributions, or other certain contributions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mrs. DOLE, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit government-sponsored enterprises from making 

lobbying expenditures, political contributions, or other 

certain contributions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON LOBBYING, POLITICAL CON4 TRIBUTIONS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO NON5 PROFIT PUBLIC POLICY ORGANIZATIONS. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION ON LOBBYING EXPENDITURES AND

7 CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.—An enterprise may not 

8 make— 

9 (1) lobbying expenditures; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3471 IS

1 (2) political contributions; or 

2 (3) contributions to any organization described 

3 under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 

4 of 1986. 

5 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section— 

6 (1) the term ‘‘enterprise’’ shall have the same 

7 meaning given such term in section 1303 of the Fed8 eral Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 

9 Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4502); 

10 (2) the term ‘‘lobbying expenditures’’ shall have 

11 the same meaning given such term in section 

12 4911(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 

13 and 

14 (3) the term ‘‘political contributions’’ means 

15 any contribution on behalf of a political candidate or 

16 to a separate segregated fund described in section 

17 316(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

18 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)(C)). 

19 (c) PENALTIES.—Violations of this section shall con20 stitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31, United 

21 States Code. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
DAVIS v. SGT. PEPPERS RESTAURANT AND BAR, INC.

No. COA06-1469.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Catawba (04CVS1183).

Case reported without published opinion affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The undersigned  executive officers of Frankfort First Bancorp,  Inc., (the
"small  business  issuer")  hereby  certify that this  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 of the
small business issuer.


                           By:       /s/  Don D. Jennings
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Don Jennings
                              Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



                           By:       /s/  R. Clay Hulette
                              --------------------------------------------
                              Name:    R. Clay Hulette
                              Title:   Vice President and Chief Financial
                                       Officer

Date: November 13, 2003
2019 UT App 180



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT O F 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH , Appellee
,
v. J OSEPH S HAWN J OHNSON , Appellant

.

Per Curiam Opinion

N o. 20180892

- CA Filed November 7, 2019

Fourth District Court, Provo Department The Honorable Derek P. Pullan No. 161402568

Douglas J. Thompson
, Attorney for Appellant Sean D. Reyes and Marian Decker
, Attorney s for Appellee

Before J UDGE S D AVID N. M ORTENSEN , J ILL M. P OHLMAN , and
D IANA H AGEN

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Joseph Shawn Johnson appeals his sentence s after pleading no contest to two counts of child sexual abuse. We affirm.

¶2 Johnson argues that the district court abused its discretion by not granting Johnson credit for the time he served while wearing a GPS monitor during th e pre

- trial proceedings. However, “it is .

. . the Board of Pardons [and Parole], and not the trial court, which has authority to grant defendant credit for the time he served prior to conviction.” State v. Alvillar , 748 P.2d 207, 209 (Utah Ct. App. 1988); see also Rawlings v. Holden , 869 P.2d 958, 960

– 61 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (“Under Utah’ s sentencing scheme, ‘the trial judge has no discretion in fixing the term ofState v. Johnson

20180892

- CA 2 2019 UT App 180 imprisonment. He or she simply imposes the statutorily prescribed range of years, and the Board of Pardons determines exactly how long the prisoner is to be confined.”). “In other words, the Board, not the district court, ‘determines the actual number of years a defendant is to serve,’ . . . because the Board ‘functions as a sentencing entity and decides the term of
incarceration

. ’ ” State v. Cuttler , 2018 UT App 1 71, ¶ 17, 436 P.3d 278 (quotation simplified). For this reason, the Utah Supreme Court has con cluded that a trial cour t lacks jurisdiction to grant credit for time served during the course of pretrial detention. See State v. Schreuder, 712 P.2d 264, 277 (Utah 1985) . Therefore, because jurisdiction over the length of an indeterminate sentence lies exclusively with the Boar d of Pardons and Parole, the issue raised by Johnson would be ripe for consideration only if the Board of Pardons and Parole ultimately decides not to grant Johnson credit for time served before sentencing.

¶3 Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Floridino's
International Holdings, Inc. December 31, 1999 financial statements and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              359,449
<SECURITIES>                                        471,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         52,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    883,053
<PP&E>                                              2,713,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (274,729)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      3,366,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,432,771
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            7,707
<OTHER-SE>                                          714,087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        3,366,317
<SALES>                                             1,261,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,296,308
<CGS>                                               894,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,805,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  179,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,094,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,403,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     78,533
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,094,146)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.18)



</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3484 

To provide for a delay in the phase out of the hospice budget neutrality 

adjustment factor under title XVIII of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, 

Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for a delay in the phase out of the hospice 

budget neutrality adjustment factor under title XVIII 

of the Social Security Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hospice Protection Act 

5 of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DELAY IN PHASE OUT OF THE HOSPICE BUDGET 

7 NEUTRALITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 

9 the provisions contained in the final rule published on AuVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:56 Sep 12, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3484.IS S3484

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3484 IS

1 gust 8, 2008, on pages 46464 through 46522 of volume 

2 73, Federal Register (relating to part 418 of title 42, Code 

3 of Federal Regulations), the Secretary of Health and 

4 Human Services shall not take any action to phase out 

5 or eliminate the budget neutrality adjustment factor in the 

6 Medicare hospice wage index prior to October 1, 2009. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. John T. WOOD.

No. 162P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

John T. Wood, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, John Snyder, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd day of April 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Richmond County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00655-CV

ALBERTO R. GARZA AND LETICIA I. GARZA, AS NEXT FRIENDS OF ALEXANDRA 

I. GARZA AND KASSANDRA R. GARZA

v.

MELDEN & HUNT, INC.

On Appeal from the

92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-928-08-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 12, 2015