alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 19, 1996




Smith Barney Concert Series, Inc.
388 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013

Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have acted as counsel to Smith Barney Concert Series, Inc. (the "Fund"), a 
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, in connection 
with the Fund's re-classification of five series, the High Growth Portfolio, 
the Growth Portfolio, the Balanced Portfolio, the Conservative Portfolio and 
the Income Portfolio (the "Portfolios").  The Fund has re-classified the 
Portfolios into five classes each, namely Class A Common Stock, Class B Common 
Stock, Class C Common Stock, Class Y Common Stock and Class Z Common Stock.
We have examined copies of the Fund's Articles of Incorporation, as amended or 
supplemented (the "Articles"), the Fund's By-Laws, as amended (the "By-Laws") 
and the Fund's Registration Statement, as amended, on Form N-1A, Securities 
Act File No. 33-64457 and Investment Company Act File No. 811-7435 (the 
"Registration Statement").  We have also examined such corporate records, 
documents, papers, statutes and authorities as we have deemed necessary to 
form a basis for the opinion hereinafter expressed.
In our examination of material, we have assumed the genuineness of all 
signatures and the conformity to original documents of all copies submitted to 
us.  As to various questions of fact material to our opinion, we have relied 
upon statements and certificates of officers and representatives of the Fund 
and others.
Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the shares of common 
stock of the Portfolios, par value $.001 per share (collectively, the 
"Shares") when duly sold, issued and paid for in accordance with the terms of 
the Articles, the By-Laws and the Registration Statement in effect at the time 
of sale at a sales price in each case in excess of the par value of the Shares, 
will be validly issued and will be fully paid and non-assessable shares of 
common stock of the Fund.
We are members of the Bar of the State of New York only and do not hold 
ourselves out as being conversant with the laws of 
any jurisdiction other than 
those of the United States of America and the State of New 
York.  We note that we 
are not licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland, 
and to the extent that 
any opinion expressed herein involves the law of the State of Maryland, such 
opinion should be understood to be based solely upon the opinion of Venable, 
Baetjer and Howard, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, dated November 13, 1996 and 
attached hereto.
We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the 
Registration Statement, to the reference to us in the statement of additional 
information included as part of the Registration Statement and to the filing 
of this opinion as an exhibit to any application made by or on behalf of the 
Fund or any distributor or dealer in connection with the registration or 
qualification of the Fund or the Shares under the securities laws of any state 
or other jurisdiction.
Very truly yours,

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of G & L Realty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel M. Gottlieb, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|   |                    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | /s/ DANIEL M. GOTTLIEB  |
|   |                         |
|   | Daniel M. Gottlieb      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | August 14, 2003         |
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/20/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      425,151
COMMITMENTS
 116,001  197,978   87,422  197,146  113,845  400,569  399,245   24,582   25,906

CHANGES FROM 05/13/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      5,482)
   4,469    3,760    2,791    2,076    2,718    9,336    9,269   -3,854   -3,787

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    27.3     46.6     20.6     46.4     26.8     94.2     93.9      5.8      6.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      207)
      57       93       88       40       41      153      176
```

----

Updated May 23, 2014
Kristin Roebuck BETHELL, Petitioner v. Bryan STEPHENS, et al.

No. 18-1406

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

Trademarks or Patents. ( the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

Amendment Answer Cross Bill Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 2 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 46
Jason Bo-Alan BECKMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5938

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2018332EN.01000101.xml

| 19.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 332/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9036 — Advent International Corporation/GE (Distributed Power Business))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 332/01)

On 11 September 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9036. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9036. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Susan LLOYD, Petitioner v. Becky DOHERTY, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Portage County, Ohio, et al.

No. 18-1387

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6537
RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWIN MURRAY; R. A. YOUNG; LARRY HUFFMAN;K. L. OSBORNE, Warden; G. D. JOHNSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RUSSELL; BOB STAMPER, Sergeant; LONNIE SAUNDERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUMPHRIES; V. V. GRANT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERWARNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINTER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WAGNER; LIEUTENANT DOSS;JOHNNIE RUSSELL, Hearings Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHEFFY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CREGGAR; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLEVINS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-389-R) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Ronald Jerry Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant app eals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sawyer v. Murray , No. CA-94-389-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 7, 1996).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
EX-32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CEO
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2

                    SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In  connection  with the annual report of Azul Studios  International  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form l0-QSB for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005,  James
Vandeberg,  Chief  Financial  Officer  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES - OXLEY Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1. The quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

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



Date: June 23, 2006
                               By: James Vandeberg, Chief Financial Officer
                                   ---------------
# C_2018398EN.01000102.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8981 — IFF/Frutarom)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 398/02)

On 6 September 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8981. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8981. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 4.5


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                            METLIFE CAPITAL TRUST II


            THIS Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of MetLife
Capital Trust II (the "Trust"), is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of the Trust, dated May
17, 2001 (the "Certificate of Trust"), pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust
Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801, et seq.)(the "Act").

            1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is MetLife Capital Trust
II.

            2. Amendment to Certificate of Trust. The Certificate of Trust is
hereby amended by amending and restated Section 2 thereof in its entirety as
follows:

            "2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee
of the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is:

                             Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association
                             500 Stanton Christiana Road
                             OPS4 / 3rd Floor
                             Newark, Delaware 19713
                             Attn:  Institutional Trust Services"

            3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective
upon filing.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has
executed this Certificate of Amendment in accordance with Section 3811(a)(2) of
the Act.



                                     CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                     NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                     not in its individual capacity
                                     but solely as trustee




                                     By: /s/ John J. Cashin
                                         ------------------------------
                                          Name: John J. Cashin
                                          Title: Vice-President
Patricia RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. LPP MORTGAGE LTD., LP.

No. 19-270

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund V L.P.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. 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):



1. 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
2. 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.



|August 19, 2004 | /s/ John P. Manning
|--------------- | -------------------
|                | John P. Manning    
|                | Principal          
|                | Executive Officer  
|                |                    
|                |
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00 202

- CV IN RE Paul JONES Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 23, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On March 18, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to stay the trial court proceedings. Relator complains the trial court erred (1) in finding the discovery propounded on real party in interest untimely and ordering that real party in interest was not required to respond, and (2) in excluding documents produced in response to subpoenas served on AT&T and Sprint Nextel Corp. However, mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Generally, a relator has no adequate remedy by appeal in

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 336742 , styled Paul Jones v. Pozzi Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Border Construction Services , et al ., pending in the County Court at Law No. 3 , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David J. Rodriguez presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable Irene Rios, pre siding judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas.04

- 11

- 00202

- CV

- 2

- a discovery context when: (1) the app ellate court would not be able to cure the trial court’s discovery error; (2) the party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated or severely compromised by the erroneous discovery ruling to the extent that the party is effectively denied the ability to develop the merits of its case; or (3) the trial court’s discovery order disallows discovery which cannot be made a part of the appellate record, thereby denying the appellate court’s ability to evaluate the effect of the trial court’s error

. See In re Colonial Pipeline Co. , 968 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. 1998); In re K.L. & J. L.P. , No. 04

- 10

- 00070

- CV, 2010 WL 5176846, at *2 (Tex. A pp . — S an Antonio Dec. 10, 2010, orig. proceeding) . While relator correctly lays out the adequate remedy by appeal standard, he fails to provide any analysis as to why he has no adequate remedy by appeal. Therefore, because relator has failed to establish he does not have an adequate remedy by appeal, t he petition for writ of mandamus and the motion to stay are DENIED. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Michael R. PRESLEY, et al., Petitioners v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-214

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Lorenzo DAVIS, Jr., Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 19-5831

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
IN RE Benny STEWART, Petitioner

No. 18-9561

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, et al., Petitioners, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION.

No. 19-1110.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
James Odell BAXTER, II, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5282

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, 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.

Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.