alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.2

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring:

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring, as of
March 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in consolidated equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
March 31, 2008. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and
Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring, at March 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended March 31, 2008, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

July 25,
2008

Ernst &
Young AG
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
Munich, Germany

|/s/GERHARD MÜLLERWirtschaftsprüfer |  |  |  | /s/RALF BOSTEDTWirtschaftsprüfer |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Adepeju Sherifa GIWA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-1637.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 9, 2003.

Decided Aug. 6, 2003.

Irena Izabella Karpinski, Law Offices of Irena Karpinski, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Allen W. Hausman, Aviva L. Poczter, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Adepeju Sherifa Giwa, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the administrative ree*220ord, the Board’s order and the IJ’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s conclusion that Giwa failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution necessary to qualify for asylum. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002).

The standard for receiving withholding of deportation is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” *Chen v. U.S. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. *INS v. Cardozar-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). As Giwa has failed to establish refugee status, she cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation.

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
**EXHIBIT 31(b)****RULE 13a — 14(a)/15d — 14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Henry G. Schopher, III., Chief Financial Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peerless Mfg. Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.       /s/ Henry G. Schopfer, III Henry G. Schopfer, III    Chief Financial Officer    Date: February 14, 2006
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant                           ( print page 51310)                        applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                 

*Name of Committee:*                         Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review Group, NST-1 Subcommittee.                     

*Date:*                         September 8-9, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         The M Street Renaissance Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Raul A. Saavedra, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch,  Division of Extramural Research,  NINDS/NIH/DHHS, NSC;  6001 Executive Blvd., Ste. 3208,  Bethesda, MD 20892-9529,  301-496-9223,                         *saavedrr@ninds.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological  Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS). 

Dated: August 25, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20183 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0452n.06

Case No. 19-4060

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY D. MANN; JOHN T. BRAGG; 

ERIC PASTRANO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION; 

MONA C. PARKS; GARY C. MOHR; DAVID 

HANNAH; JANICE DOUGLAS, Doctor; 

ANDREW D. EDDY, Doctor; ANNETTE 

CHAMBERS-SMITH; GRAFTON 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE HEALTH 

CARE ADMINISTRATOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

BEFORE: BOGGS, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Some Ohio prisoners suffer from Hepatitis C, a slow-moving infection

that can cause serious harm in some people. Ohio monitors all infected prisoners and provides at 

least some prisoners state-of-the-art medication when a particular test indicates the disease has 

reached a certain stage. Three Ohio prisoners with Hepatitis C, each denied this medication when 

they asked for it, filed this putative class action under the Eighth (and Fourteenth) Amendment, 

challenging Ohio’s policy for allocating the medication. They sought damages and an injunction 
Case No. 19-4060, Mann, et al., v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. and Corr., et al.

2

compelling the defendants to provide the medication. The district court rejected their claims as a 

matter of law on the ground that no Eighth Amendment violation occurred. 

After the three plaintiffs appealed that judgment, a few things happened. One: each of the 

named plaintiffs received at least some of the medication they asked for. That means their request 

for an injunction may be moot; we have no authority to compel the defendants to do something 

they have already done. See Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 714 (6th 

Cir. 2011). Two: the defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense to the plaintiffs’ 

request for money damages. Because they did not raise the issue until now, the district court did 

not have an opportunity to consider the second prong of the defense: whether the defendants 

violated “clearly established law.” Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S. Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015). Three: the 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has modified its protocols for treating Hepatitis 

C. According to representations from counsel at oral argument, a much larger group of inmates 

has become eligible for immediate medication. 

In this evolving setting, we think it best to allow the district court to address these issues 

in the first instance: to determine whether the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is moot, to 

determine whether qualified immunity bars their money-damages claims, and to determine 

whether the new prison policy otherwise alters the landscape of this litigation. In the event some 

or all of the parties remain dissatisfied with the district court’s rulings on remand, we stand ready 

to entertain a second appeal. See 6th Cir. I.O.P. 34(b)(2).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6651
KEITH S. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WALTER W. STOUT, Judge; K. SCOTT MILES, Public Defender; MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Richmond City Jail Sheriff, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-259-2) Submitted: May 28, 2003 Decided: June 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith S. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Keith S. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeDavis v. Stout , No. CA-03-259-2 (E.D. Va. April 17, 2003). 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
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending July 30, 2005, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gregory J. Young, President & Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

#  

# (2)                The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory  J. Young                      |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                   |   |
| April 8, 2008                     |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin Hogge, Chief Financial Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the 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; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2007



|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    KEVIN
HOGGE                                                                                
|Kevin Hogge Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC
Health Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO. 07-01-0512-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

FEBRUARY 19, 2002

______________________________

IN THE ESTATE OF JOSE SOTELLA FLORES, DECEASED

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 95-779,794; HON. LARRY B. LADD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

Elodia Flores (appellant) attempts to perfect an appeal to this Court. By letter from

this Court dated January 2, 2002, we informed her that the filing fee of $125.00 required

to perfect this appeal was outstanding and that the failure to pay same could result in the

dismissal of her case. To date, appellant has not paid the $125.00 filing fee as directed.

Nor has she provided us with evidence illustrating that she is entitled to proceed as a

pauper.

Due to appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 (c). 

 Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
GEHL COMPANY
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION  






Annual Retainer Fees  



	•  	Board
of Directors - An annual fee of $20,000.




	•  	Committee
Chairman:




	 	• 	Audit
Committee - An annual fee of $5,000




	 	• 	Compensation
Committee - An annual fee of $3,000






Directors' Meeting Fee  




		
	Regular Meeting	$1,250 per meeting attended/participated
	Telephonic Meeting	$1,250 per meeting attended/participated








Board Committee Fees -
Regular and Telephonic  


		
	Chairman of Committee	 
	       Audit Committee	$2,500 per meeting attended/participated
	       Compensation & Benefits Committee	$1,500 per meeting attended/participated
	       Nominating Committee	$1,000 per meeting attended/participated
	Other members
	       Audit Committee	$1,500 per meeting attended/participated
	       Compensation & Benefits Committee	$1,000 per meeting attended/participated
	       Nominating Committee	$   750 per meeting attended/participated






Fee Payment  



All fees will be paid on a quarterly
basis. 



Stock Option  



Each year, on the day following the
Annual Shareholders Meeting, a grant of 2,000 shares shall be made subject to the Gehl
Company 2004 Equity Incentive Plan. 



Expenses  



All reasonable expenses for Board & Committee
meetings will be reimbursed to include travel, meals, lodging, telephone, mailing, etc. 



Travel and Accident
Insurance  



Insured for $250,000
|  | • | 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  Partnership. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      MICHAEL E. MERCER                         |               |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                                |     |
| Michael      E. Mercer                             |               |
| Chief      Financial Officer of EV Management LLC, |               |
| general      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,        |               |
| general      partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.   |               |

----
exv4w4



 




Exhibit 4.4


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO

CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.




      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-202 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited
Partnership Act, the undersigned limited partnership desires to amend and its Certificate of
Limited Partnership, and for that purpose submits the following Certificate of Amendment.




	1.  	Name: The name of the Partnership is Summit Properties Partnership, L.P.
	 
	2.  	Amendment: The Certificate of Limited Partnership is amended as follows:





      Article 1 is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:




	 	“1.  	Name. The name of the limited partnership
formed hereby is Camden Summit Partnership, L.P.





      Article 3 is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:




	 	  3.  	General Partner. The name and business address
of the sole general partner of the Partnership is:





	 	 	 
	

	 	Camden Summit, Inc.
	 

	 	3 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1300
	

	 	Houston, Texas 77046






      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Amendment to Certificate of Limited
Partnership as of February 28, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	By:	 	Camden Summit, Inc., its general partner
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ DENNIS M. STEEN
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	Dennis M. Steen
	

	 	 	 	 	 	Senior Vice President—Finance, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary