alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0001058239
<NAME> SALOMON BROTHERS HIGH INCOME FUND II, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                    1,057,746,838
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     933,508,419
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,432,304
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                   5,180
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             956,945,903
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                    57,519,855
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                  108,683,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                        166,203,162
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                   997,980,860
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                       66,741,739
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                       66,741,739
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                     (21,494)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                   (82,978,206)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                 (124,238,419)
<NET-ASSETS>                               790,742,741
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                          114,195,185
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                              17,618,525
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                     96,576,660
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                  (35,895,120)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                 (77,781,609)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                     (17,100,069)
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                   95,974,620
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                   (113,049,714)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                        695,011
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                 (48,401,631)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                       10,396,408
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                             17,618,525
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       903,792,455
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            13.54
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                   1.45
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                         (1.70)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                              1.44
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                         0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                              0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              11.85
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   2.09


</TABLE>
UNDER SEAL 

EXHIBIT QQ 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-3 Filed 10/23/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4672
Donald James ANSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8667.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Lucas HEINDENSTROM, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8158.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
NO. 07-06-0353-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY

8, 2007

______________________________ ROBERT REYES, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO. ONE OF L UBBOCK CO UNTY; NO. 2005-495,451; HONORABLE LAR RY B. “R USTY” LADD , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Followi ng a ple a ofnot gu ilty, A ppe llan t Rob ert Re yes was convi cted by a jur y of driving while i ntoxicated. Punishment was assessed at 120 days confinement in the Lubbock County Jai l. After the cl erk’s record was filed, this Court discovered that i t did not contain a certificati on of defendant’s rig ht of appeal as req uired by Rule 25.2 of the Texas2

Rules of Appellate Procedu re. Pursuant to Ru le 37.1, Appellant w as notified by

letter dated November 17, 2006, of the omission and di rected to file a cert ification w ith the trial court clerk w ithin 30 days. By that same letter , the Court al so directed the trial court clerk to provide a supplemental cl erk’s record containing the certificat ion or notify th e Clerk of this Court if

a certificati on was not t imely filed. On December 28, 2006, the trial court clerk advised that

no certificati on was received. Rule 25.2( d) prov ides that the appeal “must be dismi ssed” if a cer tification that shows the defendant has the r ight of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules. Co nsequently , having complied w ith the applicable rules of appel late procedure, we must dismissthe appeal. Appellant

filed a motion for extension of time in which to file his brief on J anuary 4, 2007. Our disp osition of this appeal renders that motion moot. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish
.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

WAPP TECH LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, et al.

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

§

§

§

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-1137

§ 

§ 

§

ORDER

On May 23, 2024, the Court conducted a telephone hearing to resolve disputes related to 

subpoenas issued to Plaintiffs’ former general outside counsel, Tracey Thomas, and his firm, T&C. 

Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Thomas served as an attorney for WAPP and the inventor between 2016 

and 2023. They seek a protective order pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). 

The parties submitted letter briefs to the Court in advance of the hearing. Plaintiffs argue

that the subpoenas seek privileged information and duplicative non-privileged documents. 

Plaintiffs submit that a third-party subpoena is unnecessary because any non-privileged, relevant 

documents in Mr. Thomas’s possession would have been produced to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are 

producing all relevant, non-privileged documents in its possession to Defendant, including 

documents that are responsive to the subpoenas and documents produced in prior lawsuits. 

Plaintiffs assert that the subpoenas are overly broad and unduly burdensome due to the large 

amount of privileged documents that would be responsive to the subpoenas. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to withhold the production of

documents from a third-party or from litigation involving the named inventor of the asserted 

patents with a blanket, unsubstantiated assertion of privilege. Defendant submits that Plaintiffs’

Case 4:23-cv-01137-ALM Document 28 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 226
2

concern that Mr. Thomas will produce a large volume of privileged documents that would be 

overly burdensome to review and log is speculative. Defendant asserts that Mr. Thomas’s 

production of documents in prior litigation confirms that he has responsive, non-privileged 

documents.

The parties thoroughly argued the issues at the hearing. In accordance with the ruling on 

the record at the hearing, Plaintiffs’ motion for protection is GRANTED. The subpoenas are 

overly broad and would lead to privileged and duplicative non-privileged documents. The 

exceptionally broad subpoenas create an undue burden to prepare the necessary, sizable privilege 

log.

The parties shall continue to meet and confer on subpoenas of a narrower scope that would 

ferret out potential non-privileged documents. Plaintiffs agreed to provide privilege logs on 

narrow categories of documents including the 2017 agreement discussed at the hearing and fee 

agreements with Mr. Thomas.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of May, 2024.

Case 4:23-cv-01137-ALM Document 28 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 227
# C_2017188EN.01000701.xml

| 14.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/7

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
   (1)
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006

1

)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 188/07)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2017) 3816 | 7 June 2017 | Sodium dichromate
  EC No 234-190-3
  CAS No 7789-12-0 10588-01-9 | Ercros SA, Avenida Diagonal 593-595, 08014 Barcelona, Spain | REACH/17/18/0 | Use of sodium dichromate as an additive for supressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacture of sodium chlorate with or without subsequent production of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite | 21 September 2029 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2017) 3816

7 June 2017

Sodium dichromate

EC No 234-190-3

CAS No 7789-12-0 10588-01-9

Ercros SA, Avenida Diagonal 593-595, 08014 Barcelona, Spain

REACH/17/18/0

Use of sodium dichromate as an additive for supressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacture of sodium chlorate with or without subsequent production of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite

21 September 2029

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

2

---
Michael SKILLERN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6046.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 6**  **392**

JOHNNY RAY GAMBRELL ,

P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

SC, STATE OF; WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent s
- Appellee s
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv
- 02911

- JMC )

Submitted : May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ , KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Johnny Ray Gambrell , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee s
.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Johnny Ray Gambrell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate
judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gambrell
that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation
could waive appellate review of a district court order based
upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v.

Collins , 76 6 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gambrell has waived
appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,




SECTION
1350




In
connection with the Annual Report of Mendocino Brewing Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mahadevan Narayanan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and




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




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




Date:  March
31, 2010




/s/
      Mahadevan Narayanan
                Mahadevan
      Narayanan,
                  Chief
      Financial
Officer
Anthony WRIGHT, Petitioner v. Kenneth E. LASSITER, et al.

No. 18-9560

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2017384EN.01001001.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/10

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING (CEPOL)

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2016

(2017/C 384/36)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.cepol.europa.eu/who-we-are/key-documents/final-accounts

---
Carolyn HILL-LOMAX, Petitioner, v. David VITTETOE, et al.

No. 19-7629.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa denied.
Calvin JAMES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5035

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
H. Con. Res. 14 Agreed to March 11, 2013

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 

11, 2013, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the 

days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with 

such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
Independent Auditors Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
the Smith Barney Income Funds:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Balanced Fund of the Smith Barney Income
Funds (Fund) for the year ended July 31, 2002, we considered its
internal control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of July
31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Trustees of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                       KPMG LLP

New York, New York
September 12, 2002
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Daniel M. Gottlieb, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of G&L Realty Corp.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005
|                       
|/s/ Daniel M. Gottlieb 
|Daniel M. Gottlieb     
|Chief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12555

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00412-WSD-ECS-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TODD MILTON IVERY, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

 (March 13, 2013)

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Citronberg, appointed counsel for Todd Milton Ivery in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

Case: 12-12555 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ivery’s conviction and sentence 

are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12555 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 2 of 2