alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP

555 17th Street

Suite 3600

Denver, CO 80202

 

December 21,2007

 

UAPHolding Corp.7251 W. 4th StreetGreeley, CO

 

Wehave reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financialinformation of UAP Holding Corp. as of and for the periods ended November 25,2007, and November 26, 2006, as indicated in our report dated December 21,2007; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation.

 

Weare aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 25,2007, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-133261,No. 333-127064, and 333-146706 on Form S-8.

 

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |
|------------------------------------|

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5509-5510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1909]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub-No. 4)]


Railroad Cost Recovery Procedures-Productivity Adjustment

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

[[Page 5510]]


ACTION: Proposed adoption of a Railroad Cost Recovery Procedures 
productivity adjustment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board proposes to adopt 1.035 
(3.5%) as the measure of average change in railroad productivity for 
the 1999-2003 (5-year) period. The current value of 2.2% was developed 
for the 1998 to 2002 period.

DATES: Comments are due February 16, 2005.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The proposed productivity adjustment is effective March 
3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original and 10 copies) referring to STB 
Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub-No. 4) to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Jeff Warren, (202) 565-1533. 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision, which is available on our Web site http://www.stb.dot.gov. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, e-
mail or call the Board's contractor, ASAP Document Solutions; 9332 
Annapolis Rd., Suite 103, Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a6b796b7a6e694a7c6f786370656424646f7e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9c8e9c8d999ebd8b988f94879293d3939889">[email protected]</span></a>; 
phone (202) 306-4004. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available 
through FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.]
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or energy conservation.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Decided: January 25, 2005.

    By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice-Chairman Buttrey, and 
Commissioner Mulvey.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-1909 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19215]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 11, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. William Schwing Patout, III, Franklin, Louisiana; Robert 
Bernadas Patout and Judith Hill Patout, both of Jeanerette, Louisiana; 
and Rivers Martin Patout, Jeanerette, Louisiana; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Jeanerette First National Bancorp, Inc., Jeanerette, 
Louisiana, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of 
The First National Bank of Jeanerette, Jeanerette, Louisiana.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Tracy Basinger, Director, 
Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. Enoch Andrus Ludlow, Provo, Utah; to acquire additional voting 
shares of Far West Bancorporation, Provo, Utah, and thereby indirectly 
acquire additional voting shares of Far West Bank, Provo, Utah.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 21, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19215 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3913 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3913

 To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to require agencies to 
     make considerations relating to the promotion of efficiency, 
competition, and capital formation before issuing or modifying certain 
                              regulations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2014

  Mr. Duffy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to require agencies to 
     make considerations relating to the promotion of efficiency, 
competition, and capital formation before issuing or modifying certain 
                              regulations.

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

SECTION 1. RULEMAKING CONSIDERATIONS.

    Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1851) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Consideration of Promotion of Efficiency, Competition, and 
Capital Formation.--In issuing or modifying any regulation under this 
section, the appropriate Federal banking agencies, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission--
            ``(1) shall consider whether the regulation is necessary or 
        appropriate in the public interest;
            ``(2) shall consider whether the regulation will promote 
        efficiency, competition, and capital formation;
            ``(3) shall consider, among other matters, the impact the 
        regulation would have on competition;
            ``(4) may not adopt the regulation if it would impose a 
        burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in 
        furtherance of the purposes of this section; and
            ``(5) shall include in the statement of basis and purpose 
        incorporated in the regulation adopted under this section, the 
        reasons for the determination under paragraph (4) that any 
        burden on competition imposed by the regulation is necessary or 
        appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.
(the Company), that to his knowledge:



(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (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.



This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
|                     | 
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero                  
|                     |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                     |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008285EN.01001002.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-447/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 39 EC - Employment in the public administration - Masters and officers (chief officers) of vessels - Allocation of State authority on board - Requirement to hold the nationality of the flag Member State)

(2008/C 285/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 39 EC — National legislation reserving the posts of master and chief officer on all vessels flying the flag of that Member State to its nationals

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation the requirement that masters and chief officers on all vessels flying the Italian flag hold Italian nationality, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation the requirement that masters and chief officers on all vessels flying the Italian flag hold Italian nationality, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3148

___________________________ Matthew Shawn Victor Bridges lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant

v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ Submitted: September 10, 2024 Filed: September 13, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Matthew Bridges appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The district court granted a certificate of

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, then United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, now Chief Judge.appealability on Bridges’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a

direct appeal as requested. After de novo review of the ineffective-assistance claim, according deference to the district court’s credibility findings, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that Bridges did not ask his attorney to file an appeal. See Walking Eagle v. United States , 742 F.3d 1079, 1082 (8th Cir. 2014). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to continue the hearing to allow Bridges’s additional proposed witnesses to testify. See Souder v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 939 F.2d 647, 651 (8th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
NO. 07-08-0166-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

	______________________________

	STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

	COMPANY AND MEGAN CHEN, APPELLANTS

	V.

	BRENDA SMITH, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

	NO. 153-218821-06; HONORABLE KEN CURRY, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Before us is the joint motion of appellants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Megan Chen and appellee BrendaSmith stating that the parties have reached a full settlement of the underlying case.  The parties ask us, according to their agreement, to vacate the judgment of the trial court and render a judgment that appellee take nothing with trial and appellate costs taxed against the party incurring them.  We will grant the motion.  Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties and without regard to the merits, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that appellee Brenda Smith take nothing on her claim against appellants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Megan Chen.  Costs in this Court and the trial court, according to the agreement of the parties, are taxed against the party incurring them.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

	Having disposed of this appeal at the request of the parties, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith.

						James T. Campbell

						         Justice
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Daniel W. Brinks, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Upson Bankshares, Inc;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.

    

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my 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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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  5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  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; andb)
    
    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. Date:
September 20, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Daniel W. BrinksDaniel W. Brinks
Chief Executive
Officer, President
(principal
  executive,
financial, and
accounting officer)
 21
# C_2006108EN.01003202.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/32

---

Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission

(Case F-23/06)

(2006/C 108/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The Tribunal is asked to

| — | annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change of category, in so far as those decisions allocate a grade lower than that which should have been obtained under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitiplier coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change of category, in so far as those decisions allocate a grade lower than that which should have been obtained under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitiplier coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points;

| — | declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were all successful candidates in internal competitions for change of category COM/PA/04 and COM/PB/04, in respect of which notices were published before the date on which the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to a higher category, but with the same grade, step and multiplier coefficient as before. By contrast, their promotion points were reset at zero.

In their application, the applicants submit that the appointment decisions infringe Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 5(2) of Annex XIII thereto, inasmuch as under those provisions they should have obtained a better grading. The defendant has thus infringed the right of all officials to be recruited to the grade stated in the competition notice, and has discriminated against the applicants as compared with the successful candidates in other competitions giving access to the same categories.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that there is no legal basis which permits the defendant to continue to apply to them the multiplier coefficients laid down by their former categories or to deprive them of the promotion points they have in their ‘rucksacks’.

Finally, according to the applicants, the contested decisions also infringe the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, the protection of acquired rights and equal treatment.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40278

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARCO ANTONIO AYALA-VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 5:06-CR-1379-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Ayala-Vasquez appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. At sentencing,the district court made a specific finding that Ayala-Vasquez’s 1994 CalUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40278

ifornia conviction of possessing marihuana for the purpose of a sale was a drug

trafficking offense for purposes of a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(I).

For the first time on appeal, Ayala-Vasquez argues that the district court

erred in imposing the 16-level enhancement based on the California conviction.

Because Ayala-Vasquez did not raise this issue in the district court, review is for

plain error. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005).

It is undisputed that Ayala-Vasquez was convicted under CAL. HEALTH

& SAFETY CODE § 11359, which states, “Every person who possesses for sale any

marijuana, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.” In United States v. Palacios-Quinonez, 431 F.3d 471,

473-76 (5th Cir. 2005), we held that an offense under CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE § 11351 constituted a drug trafficking offense. Section 11351 provides,

“Except as otherwise provided in this division, every person who possesses for

sale or purchases for purposes of sale” certain controlled substances shall be

punished by imprisonment. In Palacios-Quinonez, it was conceded that possession for sale was a drug trafficking offense. Palacios-Quinonez, 431 F.3d at 474.

Our analysis there also equated “purchase for sale” with “possession with intent

to distribute.” Id. at 474-76. On appeal, Ayala-Vasquez has not shown that the

district court plainly erred in finding that his prior conviction was a drug trafficking offense and in sentencing him accordingly.

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Ayala-Vasquez

challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. That argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

AFFIRMED.