alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
18.1




[PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP Letterhead]







PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


800
Market St.


St Louis
MO 63101-2695


Telephone
(314) 206 8500


Facsimile
(314) 206 8514


www.pwc.com











October
30, 2008




Board of
Directors


Express
Scripts, Inc.


One
Express Way


St.
Louis, Missouri 63121





Dear
Directors:





We are
providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-Q
filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.




We have
been provided a copy of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008.  Note 2 therein describes a change in
accounting principle from excluding member co-payments to retail pharmacies from
revenue and cost of revenue to recording member co-payments to retail pharmacies
as revenue and cost of revenue.  It should be understood that the
preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for accounting
for member co-payments to retail pharmacies has not been addressed in any
authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we
have relied on management’s determination that this change in accounting
principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management’s stated
reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form
10-Q, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the
relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with
management that such change represents, in the Company’s circumstances, the
adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error
Corrections.




We have
not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any
period subsequent to December 31, 2007. Accordingly, our comments are subject to
change upon completion of an audit of the financial statements covering the
period of the accounting change.







Very
truly yours,




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
----

|    |                                                                                      |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of World Acceptance Corporation; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |  |
| Date:  | June 14, 2013 | /s/  A.A. McLean, III |
|        |   | A.A. McLean III |
|        |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of C. A., a Juvenile

,

Appellant

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 1 4 1

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# JV

- 2014

- 00156 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to consolidate cause numbers

08

- 16

- 00140

- CV, 08

- 16

- 00141

- CV, 08

- 16

- 00142

- CV, 08

- 16

- 00143

- CV, and 08

- 16

- 00144

- CV

into a single appeal. To the extent Appellant is requesting that all five appeals proceed under a

single cause number, t he motion is DENIED. The Court will, however, permit Appellant and

the State to file consolidated brief s (a single brief bearing all five cause numbers ).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 5 th day of August , 2016

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., R odriguez and Hughes, JJ.
#### PANAMUSICA VENEZUELA C. A., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STEEL EXPORT COMPANY, Inc., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 24, 1954.

*281Arthur E. Garmaize, New York City, for plaintiff.

Francis C. Dale, Cold Spring, for defendant.

GODDARD, District Judge.

Motion to quash subpoena duces tecum served by defendant on plaintiff's president, Sims.

Plaintiff is a Venezuela corporation, which is suing to enforce an agreement granting an exclusive sales agency to it in Venezuela. The issue is whether the agreement has been terminated.

The subpoena seeks the production of a voluminous amount of documents in the possession of plaintiff, which apparently would have to be brought up from Venezuela. The subpoena was served not in connection with the trial of the suit, but for a pre-trial deposition.

It would appear that the great majority of these documents are papers, or correspondence, of which defendant is in possession of either the original or a duplicate.

If a subpoena duces tecum is directed to a party, particularly at a deposition hearing, the specific terms of Rule 34 should govern. 28 U.S.C.A.; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, p. 1723. Rules 34 and 45 should be considered in pari materia. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, p. 1054. Therefore good cause must be shown for the production of these documents. Good cause is not shown where the moving party has the information sought or can obtain the documents or information without recourse to the discovery rules. G. & P. Amusement Co. v. Regent Theatre Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 721; State Theatre Co. v. Tri-State Theatre Corp., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 381.

There has been no showing of good cause. The motion is granted without prejudice to any subsequent attempt by defendant to require production of certain documents on a showing of good cause.

Settle order on notice.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with the annual report of Repsol Oil & Gas Canada Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis Cabra Dueñas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

February 23, 2017

 
| By:    | /s/ LUIS CABRA DUEÑAS |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Luis Cabra Dueñas     |   |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer    |   |

 

1

----

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with the annual report of Repsol Oil & Gas Canada Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Charlton, Vice-President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

February 23, 2017

 

 
| By:    | /s/ DAVID CHARLTON                                                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | David Charlton                                                      |   |
| Title: | Vice-President,   Finance, Treasurer    and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

2

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
       SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Williams Industries,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the Fiscal year
ending July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank E.
Williams, III, Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive
Officer ad Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

October 19, 2007
/s/ Frank E. Williams, III
---------------------------
Frank E. Williams, III
Chairman of the Board,
President,
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES BEDFORD FISHER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-89, CA-96-47) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Bedford Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fisher , Nos. CR-89-89; CA-96-47 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at May 2, 1998 and the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the thirteen weeks ended May 2, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                             686,400
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,783,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                        48,800
<INVENTORY>                                     37,526,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,148,300
<PP&E>                                          46,680,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (16,013,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,622,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,955,400
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        47,069,300
<OTHER-SE>                                         441,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,622,600
<SALES>                                         46,253,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,253,400
<CGS>                                           29,455,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,455,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,339,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 757,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    701,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                       259,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                441,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       441,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.02
                                               


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Michael Falvey, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aspect Medical Systems, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting .Dated: November 9, 2006              /s/ Michael Falvey   Michael Falvey   *Chief Financial Officer*
**EXHIBIT
21 - List of Subsidiaries**
 
 Wainoco
Resources Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation
 
 Wainoco
Oil & Gas Company (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Wainoco Resources Inc.
 
 Frontier
Holdings Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Oil Corporation
 
 Frontier
Refining & Marketing Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Holdings Inc.
 
 Frontier
Refining Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.
 
 Frontier
Oil and Refining Company (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.
 
 Frontier
Pipeline Inc. (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.
 
 Frontier
El Dorado Refining Company (incorporated in Delaware),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Refining & Marketing Inc.
 
 FGI, LLC
(formed in Colorado),
 a
subsidiary of Frontier Oil and Refining Company
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 612 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate May 21, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 612

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit (23)(c)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos.333-32229, 333-58686 and No. 333-76347), S-3 (Nos.
333-51932, 333-52560, 333-27849, 333-37241, 333-74958, 333-45556) and S-4 (No.
33-60007) of CMS Energy Corporation of our report dated February 10, 2004
relating to the financial statements of Jorf Lasfar Energy Company S.C.A. which
appears in the CMS Energy Corporation Form 10-K/A for the year ended December
31, 2003.

/s/ Price Waterhouse

Casablanca, Morocco
July 20, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eber ALTUBE-FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-13336

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

Beatriz Galbe Bronis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

David White, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

*997Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Eber Altube-Fuentes appeals his sentence of 71 months of imprisonment following a plea of guilty to illegal reentry following a felony conviction. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). Altube-Fuentes argues that his sentence, which is within the guideline range of 57 to 71 months, is unreasonable because it is more severe than necessary to fulfill the statutory goals of the Sentencing Reform Act. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that the district court failed to consider adequately his mitigating factors and relied too heavily on the single factor of his repeated illegal entry into the United States. We disagree and affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir.2005), which is “a deferential abuse-ol-discretion standard,” *Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, ——, 128 S.Ct. 586, 598, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We “must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” *Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597. We then “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Id.*“[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” *Talley,*431 F.3d at 788.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court sentenced Al-tube-Fuentes after careful consideration of Altube-Fuentes’s arguments in favor of mitigation, the advisory sentencing Guidelines, and the sentencing factors of section 3553(a). The district court stated that Altube-Fuentes’s criminal history and repeated reentry after deportation established that “Mr. Altube, for whatever reason, doesn’t seem to get the message that he is not authorized to be in the country.” We have consistently concluded that recidivism is not only a proper reason to increase a sentence, but the most ubiquitous reason. *See United States v. Burge,*407 F.3d 1183, 1188 (11th Cir.2005). Al-tube-Fuentes’s sentence within the advisory guidelines range was reasonable.

Altube-Fuentes’s sentence is AFFIRMED.