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



Exhibit 15 LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT May 6, 2004 Nextel Communications, Inc.
2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, Virginia We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Nextel Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for
the periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated May
6, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on
Form S-8, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No 333-26369
on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc., Registration Statement
No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration
Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement 333-1290
of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-4, Registration Statement No.
333-104076 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-3, and Registration
Statement No. 333-113003 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the 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 that Act. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP McLean, Virginia
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3205 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3205

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that fees charged 
 for baggage carried into the cabin of an aircraft are subject to the 
        excise tax imposed on transportation of persons by air.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2010

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Lincoln, 
 Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Begich, Mrs. McCaskill, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Sanders) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that fees charged 
 for baggage carried into the cabin of an aircraft are subject to the 
        excise tax imposed on transportation of persons by air.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Block Airlines' Gratuitous Fees 
Act'' or the ``BAG Fees Act''.

SEC. 2. FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE 
              TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 4261 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(5) Amounts paid for carry-on baggage.--Any amount paid 
        for baggage personally carried into the cabin of the aircraft 
        by a person shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as 
        an amount paid for taxable transportation.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment may by this section shall apply 
to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF BANTA CORPORATION

                                            OWNERSHIP BY          STATE OR
                                          BANTA CORPORATION      JURISDICTION
                                           OR ONE OF IT'S      OF INCORPORATION
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES                        SUBSIDIARIES        OR ORGANIZATION
--------------------                     -------------------    ---------------
Banta Direct Marketing, Inc.                    100%               Minnesota
Banta Europe BV                                 100%            The Netherlands
Banta Healthcare Group, Ltd.                    100%               Wisconsin
Banta Security Printing, Inc.                   100%               Wisconsin
Banta Global Turnkey B.V.                       100%            The Netherlands
Banta Global Turnkey Limited                    100%                Ireland
Banta Global Turnkey Limited                    100%               Scotland
Banta Packaging & Fulfillment, Inc.             100%               Wisconsin
Banta Specialty Converting, Inc.                100%               Wisconsin
Danbury Printing & Litho, Inc.                  100%               Minnesota
KnowledgeSet Corporation                        100%              California
Banta Integrated Media -
  Cambridge, Inc                                100%             Massachusetts
United Graphics Inc.                            100%              Washington
Wrapper, Inc.                                   100%               Wisconsin
Banta Publications-Greenfield, Inc.             100%                 Ohio
Cidex International, Inc.                       100%               Wisconsin
Banta Direct Marketing-Berkeley, Inc.           100%               Minnesota
Omnia I, Inc.                                   100%               Delaware
Meadows Information Systems, Inc.               100%               Wisconsin
Greenfield Holdings Corp.                       100%               Delaware
Banta Cayman Islands Corp.                      100%            Cayman Islands
Type Designs, Inc.                              100%`               Georgia
Ad Run Around, Inc.                             100%                Georgia
Banta Holding Corp.                             100%               Wisconsin
Banta Hong Kong,Ltd.                            100%               Hong Kong
Banta Global Turnkey (Singapore)
  Pte. Ltd.                                     100%               Singapore
Banta Canada Ltd.                               100%                Canada
Banta Southeastern, Inc.                        100%               Tennessee
Banta Global Turnkey - Guadalajara
  Sde RL de CV                                  100%                Mexico
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41288

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JASPER RIVERA, also known as Diablo,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-175-TH-ESH-1

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jasper Rivera appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction on one count of carjacking and one count of

using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 2119, 924(c). Rivera contends that certain sentencing

enhancements violate the Sixth Amendment rule announced in United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and the district court
2

erred by adjusting his offense level for abducting his victims.

Neither Rivera nor the Government addresses the effect of the

appeal-waiver in Rivera’s written plea agreement. We examine that

waiver sua sponte. See United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436,

438 (5th Cir. 2001); cf. United States v. Rhodes, 253 F.3d 800, 804

(5th Cir. 2001) (disregarding waiver provision where Government

expressly chose not to rely on it).

Our review of the guilty-plea hearing transcript demonstrates

the waiver was both informed and voluntary. See United States v.

Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.

893 (1994); United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir.

1992). Rivera’s challenges do not fall within any of the four

exceptions to the waiver (punishment exceeding the statutory

maximum; upward departure; arithmetic errors in guideline

calculations; and ineffective assistance of counsel that affects

the waiver’s validity). See, e.g., United States v. Bond, 414

F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (“statutory maximum” in waiver refers to

maximum allowed by statute, not the guideline maximum authorized by

guilty plea or jury verdict); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d

744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005) (sentence imposed in violation of 

Booker rule did not constitute upward departure). Accordingly,

Rivera’s appeal is DISMISSED because it is barred by his waiver.
3

Counsel are cautioned that failure in the future to brief the

effect of an appeal-waiver may result in the imposition of

sanctions. 

DISMISSED
----

----

| 1.   | I have reviewed the small business issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (this "report"); |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      | Atlas Mining Company |
|--------------------------------|----------------------|
|                           |                 |   |
| Date:  July 28, 2009 | By:                  | /s/ CHRISTOPHER T. CARNEY |
|                           |                 | Christopher T. Carney |
|                           |                 | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

    <ARTICLE> 5
    <LEGEND>
    The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
    consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations
    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>               OCT-31-1998
    <PERIOD-END>                    JUL-31-1998
    <CASH>                          16,225
    <SECURITIES>                         0
    <RECEIVABLES>                   67,448
    <ALLOWANCES>                     2,915
    <INVENTORY>                      1,740
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>               138,216
    <PP&E>                          30,430
    <DEPRECIATION>                  19,601
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                 374,790
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          196,131
    <BONDS>                        119,364
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
    <PREFERRED>                          0
    <COMMON>                           185
    <OTHER-SE>                      59,187
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   374,790
    <SALES>                        327,784
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>               327,784
    <CGS>                          285,948
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                  285,948
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                11,673
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>              12,085
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                (30,361)
    <INCOME-TAX>                       805
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>            (31,166)
    <DISCONTINUED>                  (6,000)
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
    <CHANGES>                            0
    <NET-INCOME>                   (37,166)
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.31)
    <EPS-DILUTED>                     (.24)
            

</TABLE>
#### JONES v. KENNEDY et al.

No. 90205.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Feb. 5, 1942.

James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Chester T. Lane and Robert E. Kline, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., for defendants Matthews and Healey.

Robert E. Kline, Jr., of Washington, D. C., for defendant Landis.

E. Cortlandt Parker, of Washington, D. C., for defendant Kennedy.

BAILEY, Justice.

On August 7, 1939, a motion to strike the second amended complaint was sustained by this Court, and the plaintiff granted ten days in which to file a further amended complaint. He elected however to stand upon the second amended complaint and appealed to the Court of Appeals from the order striking the second amended complaint.

The action of this Court was sustained by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff now moves for leave to file a third amended complaint. In my opinion the application comes too late, especially in view of the fact that he was given the opportunity of filing a third amended complaint before the appeal and elected not to do so.

The motion for leave to file a third amended complaint should be overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Martin Johnson, Appellant.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000824840
<NAME> ADVANTAGE LIFE PRODUCTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,540,826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       149,449
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,690,275)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 5043.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### HENRY SCHULTZ vs. THOMAS FINEGAN ET AL.

*416May 16, 1910.

Rehearing refused May 30, 1910.

Writ denied July 1,1910 by the Supreme Court.

Henriques & Duchamp for plaintiff and appellee.

P. P. and W. J. Hennessey for defendant and appellant.

E. P. Quinius attorney.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin a lessor and a constable from seizing, for rent due by his step-father, a certain piano and parlor set found in the leased premises, claiming that they are his personal property and exempt from such seizure by reason of the fact that he is a sub-tenant, to-wit: a boarder in the house, and has paid his board in full to his step-father, the tenant.

The evidence fully supports the allegations of fact and we have already held, and still adhere to, the proposition of law that a boarder who lives in the leased premises is a sub-tenant, to the extent at least that the property belonging to him and contained in the lease-d premises is subject to seizure for the rent due by the tenant, only in so far as he is himself indebted to the tenant.

Rosenthal vs. Longley, 1 Ct. of App. 206-207.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of American Locker Group Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the respective capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

Dated: July 27, 2005

                                    /s/ Edward F. Ruttenberg
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Edward F. Ruttenberg
                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                    /s/ Wayne L. Nelson
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Wayne L. Nelson
                                    Principal Accounting Officer
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0135 V

UNPUBLISHED

MARGUERITE BRADLEY

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 2, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On January 28, 2019

, Marguerite Bradley filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered left shoulder inj uries related to

vaccin e administration ( “ SI RV A ” ) as a result of an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine received on

November 29, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 28, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees “ that petitione r has sati sfied the

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such
material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa (2012 ).2

criteria set forth in the Vac cine Inj ury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretatio n for a SIRVA injury : petitioner had no his tory of pain, inflam mation, or
dy s function in her left shoulder; her pain and re duced range of motion occurred within

4 8 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited to the

shoulder in which the vaccine was admini stered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to expl ain her symptoms. ” Id. at 3

- 4

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master