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


 





 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


December 4, 2020


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2046


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


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2046 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-248806 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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANTONIO FITZGERALD GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1695

December 8, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge.

Antonio Fitzgerald Griffin, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus KENNETH WAYNE ODOM, a/k/a Kenny, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-04-559) Submitted: December 14, 2006 De cided: December 18, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kenneth Wayne Odom appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence pursuant to his guilty pleas to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). Counsel for Odom has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (2000), in which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but presenting one issue for our review. Counsel suggests the district court erred in denying Odom’s motion for a downward departure due to Odom’s extraordinary physical condition. SeeU.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.4 (2003). A district court’s decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines is not subject to appellate review unless the refusal to depart is based on the mistaken belief that the court lacked jurisdiction to depart. United States v. Quinn , 359 F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990)); see alsoUnited States v. Cooper , 437 F.3d 324, 333 (3d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases adopting this rule after United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005) ). Here, the district court recognized its authority to depart but found, under- 3 - the circumstances of Odom’s case, that departure was not warranted. Thus, this claim is not subject to appellate r eview. Quinn , 359 F.3d at 682. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Odom’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but his counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATK)RNEY OENRRAL OF TRXAS 

AUSTIN 

-C.WAMN 

-- \ tP 

reQu*ating our opiaion 05 

w roeeirea four ember 10, 1940, 

August so, 1910, 

0. xouur, state 

th Adminlstrlrtion, aa 

General shall be scoured wtth referenoe to 

the nOan-profit making, tax-exempt chareotsr of 

the iIl6titUtiOA.' 

"Tha appllOstion .Oi the Hookaday Ju510r 

Collsge will be held In OUT illsa pending a 

ruling by the Attorney Csneral~s Department 

on the ellgiblllty of the lnstltutlon (ra 

.,. 

523 
regards ltm non-profit making and tu-exempt 

abraotar. Tho r 18 . l ttaohod a .opr of tho 

ahartor ?or t&la inrtitutlon.* 

In aaswor to 

Junior Collym, l aao bo I 

our Query as to whather tho Hookaday 

56 a part of the H0ekad8y sohool, 1s 

a non-protlt Institution, w 8.~1 only 8ay thnt it is lnoorporated a8 wash. Tho oorpomtr purpoao or said inrtltution 

I8 l p r a a *r d l s rollon~ 

'kid aarporatlon 18 aon-pawit and 

l loomuayna~~ In Its na turl i, stm)lIshod for 

l duoatloaal and lltormrr purpose0 nnd has no 

oapltal 8to.k." 

I. 4at.mlnl~ whothor or aot prop.rty uawl ror 

sohoal purpomos Im ax-t from taxmtlon, WI rrfer to Artlola 

Tl50, Vunon~a Annotated CIrIl Statutes, whloh reads, In 

put, as foUow8: 

%I. iollodng proparty shall be l xmmpt 

from tuatlon, to-tit1 ill pub110 oollogos 

. and all muoh buIldlogo used l xolurlte~~ 

&ii ouad by prosoar or seroa3atlono or porroarwsohool purposas; . . . . . (Bnphamls 

ourm). 

Ii tha builaiaaa ooarprlslng thm Hookaday Junior 

Colle60 a r e ua a d lxoluslr~l~ a56 ouod by persons or assoolatU;;i,;; porsonr r l onooi porpo~ey are axapt in# 

uhathw"~his Is true pro8oBt8 a faot pwstiea 

whSoh wa’are unable to am-or. 

you sro hutbar aaria that la opl5loa NO. O-lb41 

this departmeat ruled that the l xomptlon sot out in Arti 

7160, supra, 4008 not apply to por8onal proprrtr. 

'(I* l nolomr a oopr OS that oplnlon ubloh monbin~ a 

0ltatSoa of pertinent l utborltl.8. 

Your8 vary truly 

A8818taat
Exhibit 10.1


    
      

    


    EXHIBIT
      10.1

    


    SUMMARY
      OF ZONES, INC BOARD MEETING FEES AND BASIC COMPENSATION

    


    


    Our
      non-employee directors receive a quarterly retainer fee of $2,500, in addition
      to $1,000 for each in-person meeting of the Board of Directors they attend.
      Our
      non-employee directors also receive fees associated with the committee meetings
      they attend. The Audit Committee is comprised of its chair, John Bauer, and
      members John Carleton, Kenneth Kirkpatrick and Cathi Hatch. The Compensation
      Committee is comprised of its chair, John Carleton, and members John Bauer,
      Kenneth Kirkpatrick and Cathi Hatch. The Nominating and Corporate Governance
      Committee is comprised of its chair, John Carleton, and members John Bauer
      and
      Cathi Hatch. The Strategic Committee is comprised of Co-Chairs William Keiper
      and John Carleton. The Section 162(m) Committee is comprised of its chair,
      John
      Bauer, and member Cathi Hatch. The following summarizes the fees paid to board
      members for committee meetings:

    


    


    
      	
              Committee

            	 	
              Position

            	 	
              Compensation
                per 

              Committee
                Meeting

            
	
              Audit
                Committee

            	 	
              Chair

            	 	
              $5,000

            
	 	 	
              Member

            	 	
              $2,000

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Compensation
                Committee

            	 	
              Chair

            	 	
              $1,500

            
	 	 	
              Member

            	 	
              $ 
                 750

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Nominating
                and Corporate Governance Committee

            	 	
              Chair

            	 	
              $2,500

            
	 	 	
              Member

            	 	
                  
                750

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Strategic
                Committee

            	 	
              Co-Chair

            	 	
              $9,000

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Section
                162(m) Committee

            	 	
              Chair
                

            	 	
              $1,500

            
	 	 	
              Member
                

            	 	
                  
                750
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**REAL MEX RESTAURANTS, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 25, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Steven Tanner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

November 8, 2005 

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ STEVEN TANNER         |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Steven Tanner             |
|   |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
7. The sUAS Pilot will serve as Pilot in Command (PIC). If 

a pilot certificate holder, other than the sUAS Pilot, 

possesses the necessary PIC qualifications and is also 

present, that person can also be designated as PIC. 

8. The sUAS will only operate within an area as defined in 

the Manual on pages 21-22. Additionally, the sUAS will 

only operate under 400ft AGL, and outside a 3 statute 

mile radius of any airport. The sUAS will never enter 

any MOA or Restricted Airspace, nor shall it violate any 

TFR as outlined by the FAA.

9. A pre-flight briefing will be conducted in regard to the 

planned sUAS operation prior to each day’s flying / 

recording activities. It will be mandatory that all 

personnel who will be performing duties as “flight crew” 

be present for this briefing. 

10. The Operator will obtain the consent of all persons 

involved in the filming and ensure that only consenting 

persons will be allowed within 100 feet of the flight 

operation, and this radius may be reduced to 30 feet 

based upon an equivalent level of safety determination. 

11. Pilot, and Spotter (Observer) will have been trained in 

operation of sUAS generally and received up-to-date 

information on the particular sUAS to be operated as 

required. 

12. Spotter (Observer) and Pilot will at all times be able to 

communicate by voice or radio.

13. Written and/or oral permission from the relevant 

property holders will be obtained. 

14. If the sUAS loses communications or loses its GPS 

signal, the UAS will have capability to return to a predetermined location and land. 

15. The sUAS will have the capability to abort a flight in 

case of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Dustie Davenport

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00956

- CV

Trial court case number: 411333

Trial court: Probate Court No

. 4 of Harris County

On November 26 , 2014, r elator, Dustie Davenport , filed a petition for writ of

mandamus challenging the trial court’s March 27, 2013 and April 23, 2014 orders

restricting her visitations of, and then barring her access to, Richard Lee Woodside, Jr

. The Court requests that the real part y in interest , Marcia Pevey, respond to the petition

for writ of mandamus , with specific attention to relator’s argument regarding personal

juri sdiction . It is ordered that the response of any interested party , if any, shall be due

within 30 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 Acting individually

Date: December 4, 2014
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 1

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is

assembled.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to

RESOLUTION

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of

the Senate is assembled.

1 Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of

2 Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled

3 and that the Senate is ready to proceed to business.

Æ
Aviation Fuel Tax Action Plan The FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue; Proceeds From Taxes on Aviation Fuel, (79 Fed. Reg. 66282, November 7, 2014) (Amendment) provides that state or local taxes on aviation fuel (except taxes in effect on December 30, 1987) are subject to the revenue-use requirements in 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) and 47133, and may only be used for airport purposes. State taxes on aviation fuel (imposed by either an airport sponsor or non-sponsor) may also be used to support a state aviation program. The Amendment applies prospectively to the use of proceeds from both new and existing aviation taxes that do not qualify for grandfathering from the revenue use requirements. 1 The FAA stated in the Amendment that it believed that State and local governments should prepare and submit an action plan to the FAA by December 8, 2015. Submission of an action plan will permit State and local governments a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance to ensure that any funds collected from aviation fuel taxes will be used for airport purposes. Action Plans should detail: 1. The process to amend any non-compliant laws to conform to federal law on use of aviation fuel tax revenues, and restructure general revenues to adapt to the dedication of aviation fuel tax revenue to airports and State aviation programs. 2. A commitment to undertake the legislative process. 3. The process necessary to develop reporting requirements and tracking systems for discrete information on aviation fuel taxes revenues; confirm that the accounting, tracking, and reporting mechanisms will be implemented to ensure airport revenue accounts receive on a timely basis an amount equal or exceeding the amounts collected as aviation fuel taxes; the requirements to ensure the appropriations are implemented and are enforceable by state or local agencies. 4. The transition period for implementation of the Action Plans ends on December 8, 2017. Action Plans should be mailed to: Byron K. Huffman, Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW. Washington, D.C. 20591 Electronic copies may be emailed to Byron K. Huffman at 9-ARP-ACO-AVFUELTAX@faa.gov

. 1 State or local taxes on aviation fuel taxes in effect on December 30, 1987) may be subject to grandfathering status. The FAA has posted guidance on aviation fuel tax grandfathering, Aviation Fuel Tax Grandfathering Action Plans , (Docket ID: FAA-2013-0988-0041, July 17, 2015) at www.regulations.gov.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jose M. GARCIA & Nancy J. Haerens.

No. K89-342.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 24, 1989.

*1154Gerald J. Block, Lafayette, for applicants.

Keith Stutes, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lafayette, for respondents.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and LABORDE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED: The Federal District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this matter and it is that forum where relator must litigate his motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1355. The lower court’s recognition of its lack of jurisdiction was not erroneous. Relator’s request that the Court Commissioner’s ruling be reinstated is denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy EFFLER.

No. 88 KA 0079.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 21, 1988.

*1111Walter Reed, Dist. Atty., Franklinton, William Campbell, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee State of La.

Clarence Guillory, Public Defender, Cov-ington, for defendant-appellant Jimmy Ef-fler.

Before WATKINS, CARTER and FOIL, JJ.

CARTER, Judge.

Jimmy Effler was charged by bill of information with fourth offense D.W.I. in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:98. Defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information, which was denied. Defendant then entered a plea of guilty reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to quash. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of ten (10) years at hard labor. Defendant appeals his conviction and presents two assignment of error for review.1

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

In this assignment, defendant admits that he had three prior convictions for D.W.I., but is now contending that, at the time he plead guilty to the three prior offenses, the cases were improperly joined. We have read the minutes introduced as State Exhibit # 2, which discloses that all three charges were billed separately under different numbers and were separate for all purposes until defendant decided to plead guilty to all three charges. At the time the court accepted the guilty pleas, it accepted a guilty plea to each of the three offenses, but the three prior offenses were never joined. Further, the Boykinization of the trial judge submitted as State Exhibit # 1 clearly establishes that the defendant was aware of the three offenses with which he was charged, the various penalties for each offense, and all of his rights in relation thereto including a jury trial. The defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and entered guilty pleas to each of the three prior offenses as is reflected in the Boykinization.

Therefore, appellant is incorrect in arguing that the three cases in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court were improperly joined, and the record in the present case adequately reflects the three separate, pri- or D.W.I. convictions. This assignment of error is without merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

By this assignment of error, defendant contends that the court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Defendant received the *minimum*sentence required by LSA-R.S. 14:98 E. for conviction of the offense of driving while intoxicated, fourth offense. Although ten (10) years at hard labor is a severe sentence, a conviction of fourth offense D.W.I. is a serious crime. The fourth conviction indicates that defendant has a serious problem and is a danger to himself and is an obvious danger to the traveling public. We find no abuse of sentencing discretion by the trial court, and this assignment of error has no merit.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

1

. Defendant assigns as a third assignment of error the review of the record for errors patent on the face of the record which is done by this court in all cases pursuant to LSA-Const. Art. 1, § 19 and LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         220,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,457
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,421,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          247,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,706,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,421,621
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,966
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,216,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,997,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,997,493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,997,493)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Enterasys Networks, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-83991, 333-66774, 333-103587 and 333-117236) on Form S-8 of Enterasys
Networks, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Enterasys Networks, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
January 1, 2005 and January 3, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for the years ended January 1, 2005, January 3, 2004, and December
28, 2002, which report appears in the January 1, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K
of Enterasys Network, Inc., and our report dated May 2, 2005 with respect to
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of January 1, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of January 1, 2005, which report appears in the January
1, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Enterasys Networks, Inc.

Our report dated May 2, 2005, on management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of January 1, 2005, expresses an unqualified
opinion on management's assessment of, and the effective operation of, internal
control over financial reporting.


/s/ KPMG LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
May 2, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 25, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick F.Wolfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|                    |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ Frederick F. Wolfe  |   |
| Frederick F. Wolfe      |
|                    |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| August 04, 2006         |

 

----