alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


November 3, 2022


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 589 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting
of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed
a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
securities as of close of business on November 2, 2022, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-266863) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/  Margarita
Kalantarova 


Margarita Kalantarova


Vice President
#### In the Matter of Michael M.J. Mathie IV, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 373]—

*1060Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered August 16, 2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding by order to show cause issued on February 27, 2006, pursuant to which he was required to serve respondent and the Attorney General with the petition and any supporting affidavits on or before March 17, 2006. As a result of petitioner’s transfer to a new correctional facility, petitioner did not receive the order to show cause until March 13, 2006. Realizing that he had only four days in which to serve respondent and the Attorney General, petitioner requested an amended order to show cause, which was issued on April 4, 2006 and required service on or before May 5, 2006. Before petitioner received the amended order to show cause, he served respondent and the Attorney General with the original order to show cause, verified petition and supporting papers, but these papers were not received until March 29, 2006. Thereafter, on April 19, 2006, respondent and the Attorney General timely received the signed amended order to show cause with multiple exhibits, but without a petition. Because the verified petition was not served with the amended order to show cause as required, respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion and petitioner appeals.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the amended order to show cause clearly stated that petitioner was required to serve said document with “the petition, exhibits and any supporting affidavits.” Having failed to do so, petitioner did not comply with the service directives in the amended order to show cause *(see Matter of Frederick v Goord,*20 AD3d 652, 653 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 712 [2005]; *Matter of Arosena v Carpenter,*19 AD3d 838 [2005]). In addition, petitioner has failed to show how “imprisonment presented obstacles beyond his control which prevented compliance” with the *amended*order to show cause *(Matter of Thomas v Selsky,*34 AD3d 904, 904 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see Matter of Arce v Eagen,*267 AD2d 520 [1999]). As such, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
### §9671. Definitions

As used in this subchapter—

#### (1) Insurance

The term "insurance" means primary insurance, excess insurance, reinsurance, surplus lines insurance, and any other arrangement for shifting and distributing risk which is determined to be insurance under applicable State or Federal law.

#### (2) Pollution liability

The term "pollution liability" means liability for injuries arising from the release of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants.

#### (3) Risk retention group

The term "risk retention group" means any corporation or other limited liability association taxable as a corporation, or as an insurance company, formed under the laws of any State—

(A) whose primary activity consists of assuming and spreading all, or any portion, of the pollution liability of its group members;

(B) which is organized for the primary purpose of conducting the activity described under subparagraph (A);

(C) which is chartered or licensed as an insurance company and authorized to engage in the business of insurance under the laws of any State; and

(D) which does not exclude any person from membership in the group solely to provide for members of such a group a competitive advantage over such a person.

#### (4) Purchasing group

The term "purchasing group" means any group of persons which has as one of its purposes the purchase of pollution liability insurance on a group basis.

#### (5) State

The term "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and any other territory or possession over which the United States has jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 96–510, title IV, §401, as added Pub. L. 99–499, title II, §210(a), formerly §210, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1716; renumbered §210(a), Pub. L. 99–563, §11(c)(1), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3177.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### State Powers and Authorities Under Risk Retention Amendments of 1986

Pub. L. 99–499, title II, §210(b), as added by Pub. L. 99–563, §11(c)(1), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3177, provided that: "For purposes of subsection (a) of this section [enacting this subchapter], the powers and authorities of States addressed by the Risk Retention Amendments of 1986 [Pub. L. 99–563, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 3901 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade] are in addition to those of this Act [see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 9601 of this title]."
§ 248.127 Limitations on action pursuant to Federal cost limit. ( a ) *Retention of the project.* With respect to owners who seek to retain the project, the owner may file a plan of action to receive incentives under § 248.153, except that if the extension preservation rent exceeds the Federal cost limit, the amount of the incentives may not exceed an amount that can be supported by a projected income stream equal to the Federal cost limit.
( b ) *Transfer of the project.* With respect to owners who seek to transfer the project— ( 1 ) If the transfer preservation rent does not exceed the Federal cost limit, or if the transfer preservation rent exceeds the Federal cost limit and the owner is willing to transfer the project at a price which will result in project rents that, on an aggregate level, do not exceed the Federal cost limit, the owner may file a second notice of intent indicating an intention to transfer the project under § 248.157; or
( 2 ) If the transfer preservation rent exceeds the Federal cost limit, the owner may file a second notice of intent to transfer the project under § 248.161 or, if no bona fide offers are received, to prepay the mortgage or terminate the mortgage insurance.
### §7273b. Security investigations

(1) No funds appropriated to the Department of Energy may be obligated or expended for the conduct of an investigation by the Department of Energy or any other Federal department or agency for purposes of determining whether to grant a security clearance to an individual or a facility unless the Secretary of Energy determines both of the following:

(A) That a current, complete investigation file is not available from any other department or agency of the Federal government with respect to that individual or facility.

(B) That no other department or agency of the Federal government is conducting an investigation with respect to that individual or facility that could be used as the basis for determining whether to grant the security clearance.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), a current investigation file is a file on an investigation that has been conducted within the past five years.

(Pub. L. 101–510, div. C, title XXXI, §3104(d), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1828.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-742]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Lyndra Therapeutics has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on 
                        ( print page 76109)
                        or before December 28, 2020. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before December 28, 2020.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 22, 2020, Lyndra Therapeutics, 65 Grove Street, Suite 301, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleMethadone
9250
II
 The company plans to develop the formulation and process, and then manufacture the finished oral dosage form for use in preclinical and human clinical trials under a research grant from National Institute on Drug Abuse. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2020-26175 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### § 242.64 Current and future property.

All current or future property (including personalty) of the mortgagor on or off mortgaged real estate (except that specifically restricted by donors or specifically excluded by HUD) will be considered as part of the HUD-insured hospital and subject to all provisions of the HUD regulatory agreement. All equipment acquired by the hospital following initial endorsement and at any time during the term of the loan shall become subject to the lien of the security agreement and any Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statements filed pursuant to the security agreement, unless the mortgagor specifically requests and HUD, for good cause, approves subordination of the lien of the insured mortgagee on specific personalty for specific periods of time. The first lien on the realty (as defined in the regulatory agreement and as identified in the security instrument) cannot be subordinated in whole or in part.
and
 

MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, USA, a Tennessee Corporation 

Licensed to do Business in Hawaii, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee,
 

and
 

ROBERT RICKETSON, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-28792 

06-AUG-2012 

02:32 PM 

NO. SCWC-28792 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII 

WILLIAM RONALD DOLAN, CPA, Special Administrator for 

the Estate of ROSALINA ITURRALDE, and MIGUEL FUNES ITURRALDE, 

aka MIKE I. FUNES, Successor Personal Representative 

for the Estate of ARTURO C. ITURRALDE, Respondents and 

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
 

vs.
 

HILO MEDICAL CENTER, a Hawaii Non-Profit Corporation, 

HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Public Benefit Corporation, 

STATE OF HAWAII, 

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CIVIL NO. 03-1-0017) 

ORDER REJECTING MEDTRONIC’S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, and McKenna, JJ.,
 

Circuit Judge Nacino, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, 

and Circuit Judge Kubo Jr., assigned by reason of vacancy)
 
 Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Medtronic Sofamor Danek 

USA, Inc.’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on June 

22, 2012, is hereby rejected. 

 

Edmund Burke, John Reyes-Burke, 

David Y. Suzuki, and Murray Levin 

on the Application for Medtronic. 

Mark S. Davis, Michael K. 

Livingston, and Robert P. Marx 

on the Response. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 6, 2012. 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Edwin C. Nacino 

/s/ Edward H. Kubo, Jr.
515.606-2 Evaluation. 		    (a) The HCA or the Office of Acquisition Policy should complete the evaluation as soon as practicable, normally within 14 calendar days for initial review or 90 calendar days for comprehensive evaluation. 				         				         					          (b) The HCA or the Office of Acquisition Policy shall complete a comprehensive evaluation in accordance with the factors listed in FAR 15.606-2 and any other factors deemed appropriate. 				         				         					          (c) Once complete, the HCA or Office of Acquisition Policy should communicate the results of the evaluation to the offeror. 	  **Parent topic:** 515.606 Agency procedures.
### §9913. Training, technical assistance, and other activities

#### (a) Activities

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall use amounts reserved in section 9903(b)(2) of this title—

(A) for training, technical assistance, planning, evaluation, and performance measurement, to assist States in carrying out corrective action activities and monitoring (to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities), and for reporting and data collection activities, related to programs carried out under this chapter; and

(B) to distribute amounts in accordance with subsection (c).

#### (2) Grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements

The activities described in paragraph (1)(A) may be carried out by the Secretary through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with appropriate entities.

#### (b) Terms and technical assistance process

The process for determining the training and technical assistance to be carried out under this section shall—

(1) ensure that the needs of eligible entities and programs relating to improving program quality (including quality of financial management practices) are addressed to the maximum extent feasible; and

(2) incorporate mechanisms to ensure responsiveness to local needs, including an ongoing procedure for obtaining input from the national and State networks of eligible entities.

#### (c) Distribution requirement

#### (1) In general

The amounts reserved under section 9903(b)(2)(A) of this title for activities to be carried out under this subsection shall be distributed directly to eligible entities, organizations, or associations described in paragraph (2) for the purpose of improving program quality (including quality of financial management practices), management information and reporting systems, and measurement of program results, and for the purpose of ensuring responsiveness to identified local needs.

#### (2) Eligible entities, organizations, or associations

Eligible entities, organizations, or associations described in this paragraph shall be eligible entities, or statewide or local organizations or associations, with demonstrated expertise in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income families and communities.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §678A, as added Pub. L. 105–285, title II, §201, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2742.)
### §270–4. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789

Section, acts May 14, 1898, ch. 299, §10, 30 Stat. 413; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114 §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1144; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, related to affidavits, and filing, publishing, and posting proof of claims.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789, provided that the repeal made by section 703(a) is effective on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
Exhibit 99.2







                        Independent Accountant's Report


     Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)
     One Wachovia Center
     301 South College Street, DC-7
     Charlotte, NC 28288

     U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)
     Corporate Trust Department
     100 Wall Street
     New York, NY 10005


     Re:   STRATS Trust For IBM Corporation Securities, Series 2004-7 (the
           ---------------------------------------------------------------
           "Trust")
           --------

     Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities,
     Inc. (the "Depositor") and U.S. Bank National Association, (the
     "Trustee" and Together with the Depositor, the "Management") that
     the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
     respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as
     of September 26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement
     dated as of June 15, 2004 (together, the "Trust Agreement"), in
     respect of the STRATS Trust For IBM Corporation Securities, Series
     2004-7 (the "Trust"), during the period covered by the annual
     report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust
     for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Annual Report").
     Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement.
     Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's
     assertions based on our examination.

     Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards
     established by the American Institute of Certified Public
     Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
     evidence about the Depositor's and the Trustee's compliance with
     the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as
     considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
     examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

     In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in
     all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period
     covered by the Annual Report and Management's assertions with
     respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material
     respects, for the year ended December 31, 2005.


     /s/ Aston Bell, CPA
     New York, New York
     March 16, 2006
### §7296. Separability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, neither the remainder of this chapter nor the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §706, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 607.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20465

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KHOSROW AFGHAHI,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-204-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Khosrow Afghahi appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to 

revoke his pretrial detention order. The district court determined that 

Afghahi’s case involves a serious risk of flight and that no condition or 

combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance if he is 

released. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(e)-(g), 3145(b). 

 

* 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

December 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20465 Document: 00513315394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-20465

2

Absent an error of law, we must uphold a district court’s pretrial 

detention order if it is supported by the proceedings below, a deferential 

standard of review that we have equated to the abuse-of-discretion standard. 

United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). The same standard 

governs our review of the denial of a § 3145(b) motion to revoke a detention 

order. Id. We generally look to whether “the evidence as a whole supports the 

conclusions of the proceedings” in the district court, United States v. Rueben, 

974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992), although we review questions of law de novo, 

United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 2006).

Afghahi argues that the district court applied incorrect legal standards. 

We disagree. The district court repeatedly articulated and applied the correct 

statutory standards. See § 3142(e)-(f). Any error in the district court’s

consideration of “community ties” to Houston, Texas, or the best interests of 

Afghahi’s proposed sureties was harmless as the court found that Afghahi 

lacks ties to the United States and that the proposed sureties would not be 

effective in reasonably assuring his appearance. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). In 

light of the statutory factors, see § 3142(g), “the evidence as a whole supports

the conclusions of the proceedings,” Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20465 Document: 00513315394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015