alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
245 Summer Street

Fidelity® Investments 

Boston, MA 02210

September 30, 2016

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Attention: File Room

| RE:

Fidelity Puritan Trust (the trust): File Nos. 002-11884 and 811-00649 

Fidelity Low-Priced Stock Fund Fidelity Series Intrinsic Opportunities Fund Fidelity Value Discovery Fund (the fund(s))

________________________________________________________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Transmitted herewith pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933 is certification that the Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information with respect to the above referenced funds do not differ from those filed in the most recent post-effective amendment, which was filed electronically.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Marc Bryant

Marc Bryant

Secretary of the Trust |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1420/2004

of 4 August 2004         

determining the extent to which applications for import rights lodged in respect of the quota for frozen meat of bovine animals, provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1203/2004, can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1203/2004 of 29 June 2004 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005) (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for import rights lodged in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1203/2004 shall be accepted at a rate of 14,95821 % of the import rights applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 5 August 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 August 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 230, 30.6.2004, p. 27.

----
ROBIN SINGH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, petitioner, v. TESTMASTERS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED.

No. 16-353.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Larry R. Talmage, Deceased. Claudia Ortmann, Appellant; Elizabeth K. Talmage et al., Respondents.

[883 NYS2d 278]

*663In a probate proceeding in which Claudia Ortmann petitioned pursuant to SCPA article 19 and RPAPL 1602 and 1604 to compel the sale of certain real property, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, Jr., S.), dated December 19, 2007, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the complaint and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the respondents, dismissing the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to SCPA 1902, the Surrogate’s Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to grant relief sought pursuant to RPAPL 1602 *(see Matter of Gardiner v United States Trust Co. of N.Y.,*275 AD2d 413, 414 [2000]; *Matter of Sauer,*194 Misc 2d 634, 637-638 [2002]), which provides that “[w]hen the ownership of real property is divided into one or more possessory interests and one or more future interests, the owner of any interest in such real property . . . may apply to the court ... for an order directing that said real property . . . be . . . sold” (RPAPL 1602; *see Matter of Sauer,*194 Misc 2d at 637-638). The application may be granted in the discretion of the court if the court is satisfied that the sale is “expedient,” which is defined as “characterized by suitability, practicality, and efficiency in achieving a particular end [which is] proper or advantageous under the circumstances” *(id.*at 638 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Mantineo,*16 Misc 3d 1112[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51399[U] [2007]).

Here, the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing that a sale would be expedient *(see Matter of Mantineo,*16 Misc 3d 1112[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51399[U] [2007]; *Matter of Gaffers,*254 App Div 448, 450 [1938]). The will imposes certain conditions upon the petitioner’s interest, so that it is more properly characterized as a “conditional life estate” *(Matter of Anziano,*39 AD2d 771, 772 [1972], *affd*32 NY2d 875 [1973]). The record establishes that while a sale of the property would be advantageous to the petitioner, it would not comport with the intent of the testator or his testamentary plan, nor would it be advantageous to the interests of the estate or the remaindermen. Under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on *664the complaint, and, upon searching the record, properly awarded summary judgment to the respondents dismissing the petition. Fisher, J.E, Miller, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.
Todd SCOTT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6425.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. KEVIN DOUCETTE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 12-50370 D.C. No. 09-217-GHK
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, KLEINFELD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Kevin Doucette appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c )(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court may modify an 

# FILED
NOV 12 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1otherwise final sentence under § 3582. United States v. Wesson , 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. Section 3582(c)(2) allows modification of a term of imprisonment when: (1) the sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission; and (2) such re duction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Id. Doucette argues that he is eligible for a sentence re duction under Amendment 750, which made permanent earlier modifications to the drug quantity table in United States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. But Doucette was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guideline range that has been lowered, and was ineligible for modification under § 3582. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson , 583 F.3d at 731–32. Because Doucette cannot satisfy the first requirement for a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2), we need not consider Doucette’s ex post facto challenge to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10—the Guidelin e that sets out the policy statements relevant to the second requirement fo r a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2). AFFIRMED.

2
Jesus M. ALVAREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6390.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 19, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), I, Chung-Lun Yang, certify that:

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual
 Report of ACL Semiconductors Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
 year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and
 Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, fully complies with the
 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                    

|                       |                             | 
|---------------------- | --------------------------- | 
|Date:
 January 6, 2010 | /s/
 Chung-Lun Yang         | 
|                       |                             | 
|                       | Chung-Lun
 Yang             | 
|                       | Chief
 Executive Officer of | 
|                       | ACL
 Semiconductors Inc.    | 

This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

---
<PAGE 49>

                                                   EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
AMERICAN GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE


                                  Three Months Ended           Nine months Ended
                                     September 30,               September 30,
                                  1998        1997              1998        1997
                                  ____        ____              ____        ____
<S>                            <C>             <C>           <C>           <C>
Weighted average number
 of shares for computation      12,532,102      12,532,102    12,532,102    12,532,102
                               ===========     ===========   ===========   ===========

Net loss                       $(2,060,000)    $(2,055,000)  $(5,914,000)  $(5,717,000)
                    
Dividends and accretion
on preferred stock                 467,000         467,000     1,400,000     1,400,000
                               ___________     ___________   ___________   ___________

Net loss for common 
Stockholders                   $(2,527,000)    $(2,522,000)  $(7,314,000)   $(7,117,000)
                               ===========     ===========   ===========    ===========

Loss for common stockholders 
per common share                    $(0.20)         $(0.20)       $(0.58)        $(0.57)
                                    ======          ======        ======         ======
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                    40,604
<SECURITIES>                              19,658
<RECEIVABLES>                             80,005
<ALLOWANCES>                               1,897
<INVENTORY>                               92,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         262,277
<PP&E>                                    50,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           321,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     72,324
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                     214
<OTHER-SE>                               239,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             321,271
<SALES>                                  157,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         189,119
<CGS>                                     80,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            107,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          45,445  <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            7,518
<INCOME-TAX>                               2,556
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        4,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               4,962
<EPS-BASIC>                              $0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0.23
<FN>
<F1>  EXCLUDES SG&A AS SG&A IS PART OF 5-03(b)(4).
</FN>


</TABLE>
258 F.2d 356

#### Phillip DANIELS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15718.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 1958.

Phillip Daniels, Steilacoom, Wash., for appellant.

Wm. T. Plummer, U. S. Atty., George N. Hayes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee.

Before ORR, FEE and BARNES, Circuit Judges.

*671PER CURIAM.

On December 1, 1952, appellant plead guilty to a violation of section 65-4 — 1, Alaska Compiled Laws Annotated, 1949 (murder in the first degree). He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On September 29, 1956, appellant filed a motion in the District Court, Third Division, Alaska under 28 U.S.C.A. section 2255 to set aside and vacate the judgment of conviction entered on his plea of guilty.

On November 23, 1956, the District Court denied the motion. An appeal was taken from said judgment of denial to this court.

On May 28, 1957, 9 Cir, 246 F.2d 194, 17 Alaska 179, this court affirmed the order of the District Court.

On July 5, 1957, appellant filed a second motion under 28 U.S.C.A. section 2255 setting up the identical grounds set forth in his first motion. This second motion was denied on July 26, 1957, by the District Court on the ground that “the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain second or successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” The instant appeal is from said second denial of relief under section 2255.

The identical relief was asked in both petitions, hence the District Court exercised a sound discretion in dismissing the second petition and its order is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Quincy Maurice FUQUA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5351.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 187.

#### G. & K. Manufacturing Co. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. Llewellyn A. Luce*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. Sewall Key*and *J. Louis Monarch*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted limited to the question of the application of the statutory provisions as to reorganization.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K for the year  ended
September  30, 2003 (the  "Report") of Tech Holding  Company (the  "Company") as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  we,
Patrick O. Little,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and J. L. Chauvin,
Vice President and Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Patrick O. Little                     /s/ J. L. Chauvin
-------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
Patrick O. Little                         J. L. Chauvin
President and Chief Executive Officer     Vice President and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                            Officer)

December 29, 2003
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gary D. MacDonald, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 3) of GBS Enterprises Incorporated for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 3) fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of GBS Enterprises Incorporated.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: July 15, 2013 | /s/Gary D. MacDonald         
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|                    | Gary D. MacDonald            
|                    | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer)
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1881/2004

of 28 October 2004         

fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound feedingstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 september 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the compound feedingstuffs covered by Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 51.

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 28 October 2004 fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound feedingstuffs

Product codes benefiting from export refund:

----
Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), I, Chung-Lun Yang, certify that:

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual
 Report of ACL Semiconductors Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
 the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), as filed with the Securities
 and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, fully complies with the
 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                    

|                          |                            
|------------------------- | ---------------------------
|Date:
 September 20, 2010 | /s/
 Chung-Lun Yang        
|                          |                            
|                          | Chung-Lun
 Yang            
|                          | Chief
 Executive Officer of
|                          | ACL
 Semiconductors Inc.   

This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

---
Susan SHOTT, petitioner, v. Robert S. KATZ.

No. 16-442.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.