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



Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


October 14, 2022


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2131


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


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2131 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-267308 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


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


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jack Harrison OWEN, Appellee.

No. 72-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 11196.

#### Bloom *v.*Kloeb.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Auglaize county.

*Messrs. Roby & McLaughlin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Goeke & Anderson*and *Messrs. Lloskins & Smith,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.
#### Lester SHEELER et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BANK OF SEMINOLE, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-935.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Gary H. Neely, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

In response to appellants’ Point II, are monies held in a joint bank account of a husband and wife as a tenancy by the entirety subject to garnishment (or execution) to pay the individual debt of one of the parties ? The answer is “no” and we so hold.

The trial court had answered this question in the affirmative, relying upon First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 204. Subsequently, as we discovered, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed and took the opposite tack in First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., Fla.1971, 254 So.2d 777. It is clear from the terms of the bank signature card that an estate by the entireties was expressly created and so we need only to reverse and remand with instructions to vacate and dissolve the order in garnishment upon authority of First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co., Fla.1971, 254 So.2d 777.

As to Point I, we observe that it lacks merit substantively under the principle announced in Northside Motors of Florida, Inc. v. Brinkley, Fla., 282 So.2d 617, opinion issued July 31, 1973. Additionally, the point is procedurally infirm as it could only be raised by appeal from the 1969 final judgment — this not having been done.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-131405, 33-35760, 33-64383, 33-63715, 33-63717, 33-59002, 33-33245, 33-33244, 333-17987, 333-41427, 333-71839, 333-91345, 333-67442, 333-68958, 333-107692, 333-112615) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-83776,
333-18385, 33-60071, 333-71797, 333-96173, 333-67512) of Sara Lee Corporation of our reports dated September 13, 2006 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated September 13, 2006 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|Chicago, Illinois             
|September 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5          
<LEGEND>                         
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the period ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   84
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         84
<PP&E>                                            2,489,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,489,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,590,625
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              6,934
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,489,968
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    316,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (316,586)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (316,586)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (316,586)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Dareld R. MORRIS and Florence K. Morris, his wife, Petitioners, v. OVEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 43980.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2011364EN.01001401.xml

| 14.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/14

---

Special Report No 12/2011 ‘Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?’

2011/C 364/07

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2011 ‘Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’ |
| 12, rue Alcide de Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
# C_2012226EN.01001101.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/11

---

Special Report No 10/2012 ‘The effectiveness of staff development in the European Commission’

2012/C 226/10

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 10/2012 ‘The effectiveness of staff development in the European Commission’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’ |
| 12, rue Alcide de Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

h0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

146711(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146711

COA: 311795

Kalamazoo CC: 02-000435-FH

RICHARD ROY VENDEVILLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 30, 2013 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

I, Robert Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: February 22, 2008
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul J.B, Murphy, III, as Chief Executive Officerof New World Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)          the Quarterly Report ofthe Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)          the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated August 10, 2006 |   | By: /s/ PAUL J. B. MURPHY, III |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                  |   | Paul J. B. Murphy, III         |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|                  |   | Principal Executive Officer    |

 

----
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  Second Quarter:  2005 and 2006
         (in percent)
                                    90-percent
                   Second   Second  confidence   90-percent confidence
Age of householder Quarter  Quarter interval (&plusmn;)<sup>a</sup>    interval (&plusmn;)<sup>a</sup>
                    2005     2006   of 2006 rate of difference

United States.....    68.6     68.7      0.5           0.4

    Under 25 years    25.9     24.5      1.5           1.4
    25 to 29 years    39.9     41.4      1.5           1.4
    30 to 34 years    56.8     55.6      1.4           1.3
    35 to 39 years    65.8     66.3      1.3           1.2
    40 to 44 years    71.3     71.3      1.2           1.1
    45 to 49 years    74.9     75.0      1.1           1.2
    50 to 54 years    77.9     77.8      1.1           1.2
    55 to 59 years    81.0     81.1      0.8           0.8
    60 to 64 years    81.8     80.9      0.9           1.0
    65 to 69 years    81.8     82.2      1.4           1.3
    70 to 74 years    83.2     81.9      1.6           1.4
    75 years and over 78.2     79.2      1.1           1.0

    Under 35 yea      42.8     42.4      0.9           0.8
    35 to 44 yea      68.7     68.9      0.9           0.8
    45 to 54 yea      76.3     76.3      0.8           0.8
    55 to 64 yea      81.3     81.0      0.6           0.6
    65 years and over 80.3     80.6      0.8           0.7

aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliablilty.  The larger the confidence interval is,
in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
# C_2012235EN.01000101.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/1

---

2012/C 235/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 227, 28.7.2012

OJ C 227, 28.7.2012

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 217, 21.7.2012

OJ C 209, 14.7.2012

OJ C 200, 7.7.2012

OJ C 194, 30.6.2012

OJ C 184, 23.6.2012

OJ C 174, 16.6.2012

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2012167EN.01000101.xml

| 13.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6569 — Lecta/Polyedra)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 167/01

On 6 June 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6569. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6569. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 13, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10726 Summary Calendar

COYETT DEON JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WARDEN U.S. PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, also known as Carl Casterline, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-77-R

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Coyett Deon Johnson, federal prisoner # 07403-064, appeals from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Johnson argues that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo . See Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Office of the Comptroller , 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 2004). JohnsonNo. 04-10726 -2- argues that his instant Oklahoma federal conviction was improperly enhanced based upon an invalid state conviction from Wichita County, Texas. Johnson concedes that he has discharged his sentence on the Wichita County conviction and that he was not successful in challenging this conviction on collateral review.
See Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss , 532 U.S. 394, 402 (2001). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### William T. TOMLINSON, Appellant, v. GLUTH & TOMLINSON, INC., Appellee.

No. 1479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 8, 1967.

Interlocutory appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group, Biological Aging Review Committee NIA-B.                    

*Date:*                         September 27-28, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Rd., Bethesda, MD 20814 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7701,                         *nakhaib@nia.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 1, 2018.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-16788 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MAE HENDRIX,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 27, 2016

v No. 328191
Oakland Circuit Court LAUTREC, LTD, LC No. 2014-142087-NO

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: F ORT H OOD , P.J., and G LEICHER and O’B RIEN , JJ.

O’B RIEN
, J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

I write separately to express my disagreement with the majorit y’s conclusion that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Lautrec , Ltd., breached its duty to maintain pursuant to MCL 554.139(1)(a). In my view, Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP , 481 Mich 419; 751 NW2d 8 (2008), controls. The majority finds Allison factually distinguishable, concluding that parking lots and driveways in apartment complex es differ as to whether they are “intended for pedestrian access to the garages and pedestrian a ccess to the residential units.” However, here and in Allison , there can be no dispute that the pathway at issue, whether it be through a parking lot or through a driveway, was “intended for pedestrian access to the garages and pedestrian access to the residential units.” While it may be true that parking lots and driveways may have different “primary” uses, I do not think tha t it can be disputed that both are “intended for pedestrian access to garages and pedestrian acces s to the residential units.” Accordingly, I would affirm. Nevertheless, I do agree that the condition at issue was open and
obvious as a matter of law.

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
July 28, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

FAA sUASs Amendment to Exemption

Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

Daniel C. Augspurger has proudly been issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No FAA-2015-1453 and 

exemption numbered 11947 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting unmanned aircraft

system (UAS) aerial data collection. Daniel C. Augspurger hereby respectfully requests an amendment to 

the exemption to allow the below listed additional types of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully

comply with the conditions of the Exemption.

Daniel C. Augspurger wishes to additionally operate a Typhoon Q500+, Typhoon Q500 4K, DJI Phantom

II, and III under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Sent under separate cover are

the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the 

additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking only for the addition of another type of

unmanned aerial system, Daniel C. Augspurger respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice

does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns with this request 

for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely,

Daniel C. Augspurger

DBA The Lofty Studio

319.333.9414

1552 Progress St.

North Liberty, IA 52317