alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jean C. BEASLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1509.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 1, 1978.

*935Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellant made a showing sufficient to require the court to conduct an *in camera*proceeding to determine whether the state should be required to disclose the name and address of an alleged confidential informant.

The appellant was charged with two counts of sale of marijuana and two counts of felony possession of marijuana. The appellant filed a motion seeking an order compelling the state to disclose the name and address of a confidential informant. The motion alleged that the informant was present at and arranged for each sale, that appellant had no other way of knowing the name of the informant, and that the testimony of the informant was necessary to the appellant’s theory of entrapment. The state would not stipulate to the facts alleged in the motion and no testimony was presented. The motion was denied, and the appellant later entered a nolo contendere plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion.

At the outset, we need not consider the issue as it relates to the two convictions for possession because entrapment is not a defense to possession. *English v. State,*301 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). With respect to the two sale convictions, the allegations of fact in the motion were very similar to those in *Munford v. State,*343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), in which this court held that in response to a pretrial motion, the judge should have conducted an *in camera*hearing in order to decide whether the state would be required to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. However, this case differs from *Munford*in one significant particular. In that case, the state stipulated to the facts alleged in the motion, whereas here there was no such stipulation. We do not go so far as to hold that there must be a stipulation of facts or even the presentation of testimony, but we do feel that before the *Munford*requirement of an *in camera*hearing may be invoked, the defendant must at least swear to the facts upon which his motion is based. Otherwise, we can visualize the possibility that our criminal courts would be unduly burdened with conducting *in camera*proceedings in response to what could well be spurious allegations of fact. Since appellant’s motion was unverified and there was no other proof of the pertinent facts, the court did not err in denying the motion without having held an *in camera*hearing.

As an ancillary point on appeal, we note that appellant correctly points out that the court imposed a single general sentence of probation for all four offenses contrary to the dictates of *Darden v. State,*306 So.2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

The judgments are affirmed, but the case is remanded for the purpose of resentenc-ing.

RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### Johann A. MATHIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 10, 1969.

*630Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and Robert W. Fields, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Haywood v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 242; and Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446, opinion filed November 26, 1969.

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1


 





Alaia Capital, LLC


62 West 45th St.


5th Floor


New York, NY 10036

 


October 19, 2021


 


 


m+ Buffer 20 Fund, m+ funds Trust, Series 1-22


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee

240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, New York 10286








 


 


		Re:	m+ funds Trust, Series 1-22 (the “Trust”)



 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


We have examined Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement (File No. 333-258399) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator.


 


You are hereby authorized to file a copy of this
letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Alaia Capital, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Ian Shainbrown	 
	 	 	Name: Ian Shainbrown	 
	 	 	Title:  Executive Vice President
#### MISSISSIPPI HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICE v. Mrs. Virginia McNEASE.

No. 45804.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 11, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.

Hedgepeth & Hedgepeth, Donald W. Williamson, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Holmes & Dukes, Hattiesburg, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
eement (the “Assignment-and. Assumption Agreement”) is eitered’ inte aor
Seneca Mortgage Servicing: LLC”

This ‘Assignment: ad Asstimption
2/5/20:

nd Bank af Cimiden SAN ‘Assignee: an
ms used, but not defined, herein:shall faye the meanings ascribed:to them in the Underlying Agreement (defined

WHEREAS, Assigior aiid’ P
the: Unitéd States (“Fainie Mar
Participation Agree 4
attached heretorand ineorp.

nial | Mortgage Association, federally chartered corporation, as financial ‘agent of
re: rye es ‘to a Commitment to Pu fl I
hich (includingsall ‘exhibits; aivendments and | inodifications:|

ited hherein b yi iis teference (the Underlying Agisenient”); |

WHEREAS, Assignor has agrdad to assign 16 Assignee all Ory its fi and i aigion mndep the: Uies lying Agigentent
with feet 16 the: Eligible: Loans ihat ‘are identified on the sche
“ASSI ig

WHEREAS, Assignee hasagreed to-assume the Assigned Rightsaid:Obligations,

NOW, 'THI RE, for good ahd valuable. consideidlion, the sfeeeipt and sufficiency’ of which are; hereby
acknowledged, the’paities hereto agree as TOllows:

Assignment. Assignor hereby. assigns to:

i of Assignor’s rights:and obligations wiideiihe Underlying
2 Es i

ianeo:
ae withtespect'to the Assigned Rightsand. Obligations.

esfights and obligationsof

» The-date-on-which:the-assignment and assumptionyof rightsand obligations tinder the ‘Underlying,
tiv 14. 4

a ent isetf

4. Suecessars,
hereby are subject

Assumption Agreeitiént shall inure to the be
parties herelo..

5, Counterparts... ‘This Assignmentiand Asstiniption Aj
an original, but alLofiwhieh together donstitute one aiid 18! Sanie. insti



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor,and Assignee, by’ their duly authorized officials, hereby"exeente and deliver this
Assignment and Assumption Agreement, together with Sehedule {, effective as of the date Set forth iit Section 3 above.

ASSIGNOR: ASSIGNEE:
Scicea Mortgage Servicing LEC 0

Uahina Woods:
Vice. President PMty Sve
BAM2O1 8. i2j2ois.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Consolidated Natural Gas Company (the Company), certify that:

1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") of the Company to which this certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)).
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2004 and for the period then ended.





|/s/ Thos E. CappsThos. E. Capps
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 5, 2004                         
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas N. ChewningThomas N. Chewning
Executive Vice President and 
Chief Financial Officer
May 5, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40259

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANGEL SAAVEDRA-MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:10-CR-1870-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Angel Saavedra-Moreno (Saavedra) appeals his conviction and

sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Finding

no reversible error, we affirm.

Saavedra first challenges the district court’s imposition of a two-level

adjustment for his role pursuant to § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines,

which also resulted in the denial of a safety valve adjustment. Saavedra

contends that the enhancement is inapplicable because the person he allegedly

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 7, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-40259 Document: 00512138351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2013
No. 12-40259

directed was a confidential source (CS). Alternatively, he argues that the

district court erred by concluding that he was the person heard speaking in a

recorded telephone conversation with the CS.

Although Saavedra objected to the enhancement on the second ground he

raises here, he did not do so on the first ground. Thus, we review that argument

for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361

(5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Cabral-Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 188-89 (5th Cir.

1994). The Government concedes that the CS cannot be a participant for

purposes of a § 3B1.1 enhancement. Nevertheless, we conclude that any plain

error there may have been did not affect Saavedra’s substantial rights. 

Saavedra did not dispute the presentence report’s factual determination that he

directed another coconspirator, who was unidentified, to deliver a drug-laden

van along with $1,200 to the CS. As those facts would support the enhancement,

Saavedra cannot show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the

outcome would have been different. See United States v. Marquez, 685 F.3d 501,

510 (5th Cir. 2012). We need not reach Saavedra’s alternative argument

regarding the district court’s findings with respect to the recorded telephone call. 

Given the determination regarding Saavedra’s role, it follows that the court did

not reversibly err by denying him a safety valve reduction. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.1(a)(4).

Saavedra also contends that the factual basis is insufficient to support his

plea because it did not establish that he knew the drug type and quantity. As

Saavedra concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United

States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 307-09 (5th Cir. 2009). He raises it solely to

preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-40259 Document: 00512138351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2013
255 La. 911

#### Mrs. Ruth Leopold BARNETT et al. v. BARNETT ENTERPRISES, INC.

No. 50486.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Barnett Enterprises, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 231 So.2d 589.

Writ refused. On the showing made we cannot say the result is incorrect.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of CT Communications, Inc. (the Company), each hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) |  | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2003, filed on the date hereof 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
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.                                                                                                                 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to CT Communications, Inc. and will be retained by
CT Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Michael R. Coltrane
| |  |                        
| |  | Michael R. Coltrane    
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | May 14, 2003           
| |  |                        
| |  |                        
| |  | /s/ James E. Hausman   
| |  |                        
| |  | James E. Hausman       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 14, 2003
THE ATJJORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

HonorableWill Mann Richardson Assistant Secretary of State Austin, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-4355 Re: Corporations - charitable undertakings Your request for opinion has been received and carefully (~ns.idered by this department. We quote from your request as follows: "We are enclosing an application for a charter for the Penny A Day Club together with an affidavit giving more specific information about the work of the corporation. "It is the opinion of this Department that such a corporation does not comewithin any of the Subdivisionsof Article 13OZ5 even though the words 'charitableundertaking'are used. "Whilewe agree that the purpose may be laudable one, we do not believe it comeswithin the provisions of Article 1302, and we are, therefore, submittingthe matter to your Department for consideration in order that you may determinewhether such a corporationdoes come within the statutes." The affidavit enclosed among other things given the following information: 'I(c) That the business to be transactedby the corporat.ion will be: (Pleaseoutline fully) "The establishment in each community in the United States under thesponsorship of the local Junior Chamber of Commerce or local service organization,P chapter of the 'Pennya Day Club'; each clubwill collectvoluntary contributionsof a penny a day from school childrenand others and periodically transmit such funds collected to the corporation,which will act as a central pooling agency. The money pooled, and/or materials of war purchased by such funds, will be turned over to the U. S. Government as a gift of the Club and the Nation's school children, as a contribution towards the war effort.Honorable ifill Mann Richardson, page 2 o-4355

"and that no other business of any nature whatsoever ismught to be transacted under said charter other than that above enumerated. "

..... w(f) That the income of the corporationis to.be derived from the followingsources: "Each local (Pennya Day Club'will periodically transmit the money it has collected to the corporation. "(g) That the income is to be disbursed for the following purposes: "Themoney itself, or materials of ;~iar purchases by it, will be given to the U. S. Governmentas a gift of the Nation's children and the club. "That none of said income is to be credited to surplus or inure to the benefit of any member, shareholderor individual. "(h) That the salaries of the officerswill be: "Nothing,until the affairs~of the corporationdemand a full time executive. The By-laws provide that the total administrative expenses shall not exceed 1% of the total receipts~. "

...... n While the purpose of the proposed corporation is highly laudable and patriotic it is our opinion that you have correctlyanswered the question.

APPROVED FEB. 5, 1942 GROVER SELLERS Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEIAS FIRST ASSISTART ATTORNEY GEXERAL

WJF:GG:ml BY Wm. J. Fanning Assistant \
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1910 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to list fentanyl-related substances 

as schedule I controlled substances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2021 

Mr. CHABOT (for himself and Mr. LATTA) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to list fentanylrelated substances as schedule I controlled substances. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Initiative To 

5 Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FENTANYL-RELATED SUBSTANCES. 

7 Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Sub8 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1910 IH

1 ‘‘(e)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed 

2 in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or 

3 preparation which contains any quantity of fentanyl-re4 lated substances, or which contains their salts, isomers, 

5 and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, 

6 isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific 

7 chemical designation. 

8 ‘‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘fentanyl-related sub9 stances’ includes any substance that is structurally related 

10 to fentanyl by 1 or more of the following modifications: 

11 ‘‘(A) By replacement of the phenyl portion of 

12 the phenethyl group by any monocycle, whether or 

13 not further substituted in or on the monocycle. 

14 ‘‘(B) By substitution in or on the phenethyl 

15 group with alkyl, alkenyl, alkoxyl, hydroxyl, halo, 

16 haloalkyl, amino, or nitro groups. 

17 ‘‘(C) By substitution in or on the piperidine 

18 ring with alkyl, alkenyl, alkoxyl, ester, ether, hydrox19 yl, halo, haloalkyl, amino, or nitro groups. 

20 ‘‘(D) By replacement of the aniline ring with 

21 any aromatic monocycle whether or not further sub22 stituted in or on the aromatic monocycle. 

23 ‘‘(E) By replacement of the N-propionyl group 

24 by another acyl group.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
| Name of Subsidiary                 | Jurisdiction of Incorporation    | Proportion of Ownership Interest |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Crude Carriers Operating Corp.     | Republic of The Marshall Islands | 100%                             |
| Achilleas Carriers Corp.           | Liberia                          | 100%                             |
| Alexander the Great Carriers Corp. | Liberia                          | 100%                             |
| Aias Carriers Corp.                | Liberia                          | 100%                             |
| Amoureux Carriers Corp.            | Liberia                          | 100%                             |
| Miltiadis M II Carriers Corp.      | Republic of The Marshall Islands | 100%                             |
|                               |                             |                             |

----
File 12 Ex 12 Ten Year Experience 0001
File 12 Ex 12 Ten Year Experience 0002
File 12 Ex 12 Ten Year Experience 0003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000021686
<NAME> COLLAGEN CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,935
<PP&E>                                          15,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,555
<SALES>                                         35,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,842
<CGS>                                           10,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,014
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

p0616 

# Order

June 23, 2009

139009 & (16)(17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139009 COA: 291194 Saginaw CC: 08-031674-FH LEONARR TIONDRE MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Cour t. The motion for stay is DENIED.