alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

Officers Certificate

---

March 4, 2011

MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.
   One Bryant Park
  3rd Floor  Structured Credit Trading
  New York, NY 10036

PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUS
TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Maryann Joseph,
Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York),  a New York corporation (the Trustee),
hereby certifies in such capacity that, based on her  knowledge, the Trustee has complied,
in all material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee
under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill
Lynch Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the Depositor) and the Trustee, as
successor to United States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities
intermediary (the Securities Intermediary), in each case as amended by a
series supplement between the Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for
each trust series listed in the attached schedule.

| | Very
truly yours,
| | -----------------

| | The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly

      The Bank of New York), as Trustee
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By:
/s/ Maryann Joseph
      Name:
Maryann Joseph        
                                                             Title:
Vice President
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | 
| |  | 

---

SCHEDULE

INDEXPLUS Trust Series 2003-1
   PPLUS
Trust Series CMT-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series CSF-1
   PPLUS Trust Series
DCNA-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series FMC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2
   PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSG-2 
  PPLUS Trust Series
JPM-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series LMG-3 
  PPLUS Trust Series SPR-1 
  PPLUS
Trust Series TWC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1
   PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1
   PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series FAR-1
   PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1
   PreferredPLUS Trust
Series LMG-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series UPC-1
   PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1

| |  | 
| |  | 

---
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Stockholders and Board of Directors
The Network Connection, Inc. and Subsidiary:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (Nos.
333-38313 and  333-38315)  on Forms S-8 and (No.  333-30980) on Form SB-2 of The
Network Connection,  Inc. and subsidiary of our report dated September 27, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Network Connection,  Inc. and
subsidiary as of June 30, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for the year ended June 30,  2000,  the  Transition  Period ended June 30,
1999, and the year ended October 31, 1998,  which report appears in the June 30,
2000,  annual  report  on  Form  10-KSB  of The  Network  Connection,  Inc.  and
subsidiary.

Our reported dated September 27, 2000, contains an unexplanatory  paragraph that
states tht The Network  Connection,  Inc. and subsidiary has incurred net losses
from operations and has a working capital deficiency and an accumulated  deficit
that raises  substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The consolidated  financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

                                             /s/ KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
October 5, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15039]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,442; CMI Industries, Inc., Clinton Fabric Division; TA-W-
38,442B; TA-W-38,442C]


Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
April 13, 2001, applicable to workers of CMI Industries, Inc., Clinton 
Fabric Division, Clinton, South Carolina. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22007).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that worker separations occurred at the Vance Complex and the 
Administrative Office of the Clinton Fabric Division of CMI Industries, 
Clinton, South Carolina. The Vance Complex workers are engaged in the 
production of griege woven fabric. Workers at the Administrative 
Office, Clinton Fabric Division, CMI Industries provide administrative 
services to support the production of griege woven fabric at the 
subject firms' manufacturing facilities.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers of the Vance Complex and 
Administrative Office, CMI Industries, Clinton Fabric Division, 
Clinton, South Carolina.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of CMI Industries, Inc. who were adversely affected by 
increased imports of griege woven fabric.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38,442 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of CMI Industries, Inc., Clinton Fabric Division, 
Clinton, South Carolina (TA-W-38,442) and Clinton Fabric Division, 
Vance Complex, Clinton, South Carolina (TA-W-38,442B) and Clinton 
Fabric Division, Administrative Office, Clinton, South Carolina (TA-
W-38,442C) who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after December 4, 1999 through April 13, 2003 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of May, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-15039 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41
                           NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


            This Stock Option Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into as of
January 12, 1996 between Norcal Waste Systems, Inc., a California corporation
(the "Company"), and John B. Molinari ("Optionee"). The parties agree as
follows:

            1. Grant of Option.

                  (a) Pursuant to the Company's 1996 Non-Employee Director Stock
Option Plan (the "Plan"), the Company has granted Optionee a nonqualified stock
option (the "Option") to purchase 35,000 shares of the Company's common stock at
an exercise price of $4.89 per share.

                  (b) As long as Optionee continues to serve as a director of
the Company, (i) this Option will vest in three annual increments of 11,667
shares, 11,667 shares and 11,666 shares, respectively, on the first, second and
third anniversaries of the date of this Agreement, so that this Option will be
fully vested on January 12, 1999, and (ii) this Option will have a term of seven
years from the date of this Agreement.

            2. Other Terms. The other terms of this Option will be the same as
those provided for in the Plan, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement.
Optionee has read the Plan and agrees to be bound by its terms.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the date set forth above.

NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.



By:/s/ Michael J. Sangiacomo              /s/ John B. Molinari
   ____________________________           ____________________________
   Michael J. Sangiacomo                  JOHN B. MOLINARI
   President and CEO


Attachment: (1)  Spousal Consent
            (2)  1996 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan
<PAGE>   2
                                 SPOUSAL CONSENT


            I am the wife of John B. Molinari, the Optionee referred to in the
attached Stock Option Agreement (the "Agreement"). I have had an opportunity to
read the Agreement and the 1996 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") of Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. I am aware that the Optionee agrees to
sell all of his Shares, including any community interest I may have in the
Shares, on the occurrence of certain events. I hereby consent to the Agreement,
the Plan and the possible sale of the Shares, and agree to cooperate in enabling
my spouse to meet all obligations set forth in the Agreement and the Plan.




Dated:_________, 1996               /s/ Helen Molinari
                                    ____________________________________
                                    HELEN MOLINARI
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
DAMARIO ANTWAN EARL , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0633 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR20 12

- 114536

- 001 DT The Honorable Hugh E. Hegyi , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Karen Kemper Counsel for Respondent
Damario Antwan Earl, San Luis Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen, and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the following decision

. FILED 10-5-2017STATE v. EARL Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Damario Antwan Earl seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s second successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction rel ief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitione r has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established a n abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### ROETTCHER v. HAMILTON, Collector of Internal Revenue.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 28, 1922.)

No. 3652.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Andrew M. J. Cochran, Judge. Suit by H. W. Roettcher against Elwood Hamilton, Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Kentucky. From the decree rendered, complainant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Charlton B. Thompson, of Covington, Ky. (Robert C. Simmons, of Covington, Ky., on the brief), for appellant.

John E. Shepard, Asst. U. S. Atty. of Covington, Ky. (Sawyer A. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Covington, Ky., on the brief), for defendant in- error.

Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Since the hearing of this case by the court below, the Supreme Court has disposed of the substantial questions involved, by its opinion in Lipke v. Lederer, 258 U. S.-, 42 Sup. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed.-, filed June 5, 1922. Upon the authority of that case it must be held that the substantial assessments made by the collector, under section 35 of title 2 of the National *1023Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 317), were really penalties, and that a suit to enjoin distress and sale for their collection is not forbidden by R. S. § 3244 (Comp. St. § 5971), nor by the existence of any adequate remedy at law. Accordingly the decree herein will be reversed, and the record remanded for further proceedings in accordance with that opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1570 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1570

    Supporting the preservation of internet entrepreneurs and small 
                              businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

 Mr. Hodes (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Schrader, and Mr. 
 Daniel E. Lungren of California) submitted the following resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Supporting the preservation of internet entrepreneurs and small 
                              businesses.

Whereas the United States enjoys a strong online retail market, which for the 
        past decade has provided consumers in the United States the opportunity 
        to purchase quality products and services at competitive prices;
Whereas the open online marketplace has enabled a large number of small 
        retailers and entrepreneurs across the United States to establish their 
        businesses on various e-commerce platforms and therefore create jobs, 
        increase consumer choice, create competition in the retail industry, and 
        provide quality goods and services at reasonable and often discounted 
        prices;
Whereas any Federal legislation that would upset this open and fair environment 
        and impose new onerous and burdensome tax collecting schemes on hundreds 
        of thousands of small online retailers would not only adversely impact 
        thousands of jobs and reduce consumer choice, but would also effectively 
        put an end to the robust e-commerce marketplace that consumers in the 
        United States currently enjoy; and
Whereas at a time when national unemployment numbers are high and small 
        businesses across the country are shutting their doors, Federal policy 
        should promote and encourage the growth of small online entrepreneurs 
        and recognize the benefits they provide to consumers across the United 
        States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Congress should not impose any new burdensome or unfair tax collecting 
requirements on small online businesses, which would ultimately hurt 
the economy and consumers in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CHARLES E. RITTEN, J. PETER RITTEN AND LOUIS N. RITTEN & CO. 

CITATION: 24 Agric. Dec. 2 

DOCKET NUMBER: 118 

DATE: JANUARY 8, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER 

(No. 9563) 

In re CHARLES E. RITTEN, J. PETER RITTEN AND LOUIS N. RITTEN & CO. CEA Docket 

No. 118. Decided January 8, 1965. 

Reconsideration -- Petition for dismissed

The facts admitted by respondents in the order of July 16, 1964, constituted 

wash and fictitious sales in violation of section 4c(A) of the act and bucketing 

of customers' orders in violation of section 4b(D) of the act and the petition 

for reconsideration thereof is dismissed. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER

In this disciplinary proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 

Chap. 1) a decision and order were entered on July 16, 1964 (23 Agric. Dec. 747 

(23 A.D. 747)) pursuant to respondents' waiver of hearing, stipulation of facts 

and consent to the entry of the order entered. 

On July 29, 1964, respondents filed a petition for reconsideration of the 

decision and order. The petition contends that the decision should have 

concluded only that respondents violated section 1.38 of the regulations (17 CFR 

1.38) under the act prohibiting noncompetitive trading and should not have also 

concluded, as it did, that respondents violated sections 4b(D) and 4c(A) of the 

act. 

Complainant filed a motion to dismiss the petition because of mootness since 

respondents sought no stay of the order entered which has gone into effect. 

Respondents filed an answer to complainant's motion to dismiss. Complainant's 

motion to dismiss the petition because of mootness was not granted and 

complainant filed an answer to respondents' petition. Respondents filed a reply 

to complainant's answer. 

The facts admitted in Findings of Fact 7, 9 and 10 set out numerous 

transactions in each of which respondents bought and sold for the same account 

the same quantity of the same future 

at the same price for the sole purpose of giving business to other members of 

the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. These transactions constituted wash and 

fictitious sales prohibited by section 4c (A) of the act. In re Jean Goldwurm, 

et al. 7 Agric. Dec. 265 (7 A.D. 265) (1948). 

Moreover, respondents admitted the facts in Findings of Fact 6 and 8 relating 

transactions in which respondent Louis N. Ritten & Co. appears on the opposite 

side of transactions for customers of Louis N. Ritten & Co., although no such 

transactions actually took place but were merely "carded". Consequently these 

admitted facts show that customers' orders were "bucketed" in violation of 

section 4b(D) of the act. See In re Julian M. Marks, et al., 22 Agric. Dec. 
Page 2 

761, 774 (22 A.D. 761, 774) (1963); Campbell, Trading in Futures, 26 Geo. Wash. 

L. Rev. 215, 232 (January 1958). 

The petition is dismissed. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 3
No. 740.

#### Tibbals et al. *v.*Mica Mountain Mines, Inc. et al.

C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari xtehied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-51319

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 22, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Patrick Jones, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick Jones, federal prisoner # 83582-180, has moved to proceed in forma pau-*866peris (IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s grant of relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. Jones was sentenced in 2007 to a 360-month term of imprisonment for his conviction of possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a junior college. The district court granted Jones’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and reduced Jones’s sentence of imprisonment to 324 months.

Jones’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). This court may authorize Jones to proceed IFP on appeal if he is unable to pay the costs of the appeal and the appeal is taken in good faith, i.e., the appeal presents non-frivolous issues. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “An investigation into the [IFP] movant’s objective good faith, while necessitating a brief inquiry into the merits of the appeal, does not require that probable success be shown. The inquiry is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Jones’s IFP motion discusses only his lack of sufficient funds to pay the appellate filing fee. He has not identified any issue for appeal concerning the district court’s disposition of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Although this court applies less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construes briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. *Grant v. Cuellar,*59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995).

Jones has failed to demonstrate that his appeal involves legal points arguable on them merits. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. *See United States v. Boutwell,*896 F.2d 884, 889-90 (5th Cir.1990); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *866published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Luis GUTIERREZ-ROSTRAN, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 15-1266.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Miguel YESTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10337.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

Robert Lally Miskell, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Alfred Islas, Attorney-at-Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Miguel Yeste appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Yeste contends that the district erred by enhancing his offense level by two levels, under U.S.S.G § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on his co-conspirators’ possession of firearms. The district court did not clearly err by finding that his co-conspirators’ possession of firearms was reasonably foreseeable to Yeste. *See United States v. Garcia,*909 F.2d 1346, 1349-50 (9th Cir.1990).

Yeste also contends that the district court erred by failing to grant his request for safety valve relief. The district court did not clearly err by finding that Yeste had failed to truthfully disclose all of the information he had concerning the offense. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); *United States v. Miller,*151 F.3d 957, 958 (9th Cir.1998); *United States v. Shrestha,*86 F.3d 935, 938-39 (9th Cir.1996).

*310Finally, the district court did not plainly err by not awarding Yeste an additional one-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, after the government declined to move for the extra reduction because it would need to expend prosecutorial resources as Yeste had rejected a plea agreement. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b); *United States v. Johnson,*581 F.3d 994, 1002-04 (9th Cir.2009) (“[T]he allocation and expenditure of prosecutorial resources for the purposes of defending an appeal is a rational basis for declining to move for the third reduction point.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.