alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To The Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Income Funds:

In planning and performing our audits of the financial
statements of the Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income
Fund of Smith Barney Income Funds (the "Fund") for the year
ended July 31, 1997, we considered its internal control
structure, including procedures 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 the internal control
structure.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing
and maintaining an internal control structure.  In
fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits and
related costs of internal control structure policies and
procedures.  Two of the objectives of an internal control
structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not
absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss
from unauthorized use or disposition and that transactions
are executed in accordance with management's authorization
and recorded properly to permit preparation of financial
statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control
structure, errors or irregularities may occur and not be
detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of the
structure 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 the internal control structure would
not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control
structure 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 the specific internal control
structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level
the risk that errors or irregularities 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
the internal control structure, including procedures for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of July 31, 1997.

This report is intended solely for the information and use
of management and the Securities and Exchange Commission.




September 15, 1997
Ronald W. PAUL v. UNITED STATES

No. 17-8830

Supreme Court of the United States.

Decided November 25, 2019

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice KAVANAUGH respecting the denial of certiorari.

I agree with the denial of certiorari because this case ultimately raises the same statutory interpretation issue that the Court resolved last Term in *Gundy v.**United States* , 588 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2116, 204 L.Ed.2d 522 (2019). I write separately because Justice GORSUCH's scholarly analysis of the Constitution's nondelegation doctrine in his *Gundy* dissent may warrant further consideration in future cases. Justice GORSUCH's opinion built on views expressed by then-Justice Rehnquist some 40 years ago in *Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute* , 448 U.S. 607, 685-686, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). In that case, Justice Rehnquist opined that major national policy decisions must be made by Congress and the President in the legislative process, not delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch.

In the wake of Justice Rehnquist's opinion, the Court has not adopted a nondelegation principle for major questions. But the Court has applied a closely related statutory interpretation doctrine: In order for an executive or independent agency to exercise regulatory authority over a major policy question of great economic and political importance, Congress must either: (i) expressly and specifically decide the major policy question itself and delegate to the agency the authority to regulate and enforce; or (ii) expressly and specifically delegate to the agency the authority both to decide the major policy question and to regulate and enforce. See, *e.g.,**Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA* , 573 U.S. 302, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014) ; *FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.* , 529 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) ; *MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.* , 512 U.S. 218, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994) ; Breyer, Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 363, 370 (1986).

The opinions of Justice Rehnquist and Justice GORSUCH would not allow that second category-congressional delegations to agencies of authority to decide major policy questions-even if Congress expressly and specifically delegates that authority. Under their approach, Congress could delegate to agencies the authority to decide less-major or fill-up-the-details decisions.

Like Justice Rehnquist's opinion 40 years ago, Justice GORSUCH's thoughtful *Gundy* opinion raised important points that may warrant further consideration in future cases.
Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
The Global Partners Income Fund Inc


In planning and performing our audit of the
financial statements of The Global Partners
Income Fund Inc (hereafter referred to as the
 Fund) for the year ended August 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 generally accepted
accounting principles.  Those controls include the
 safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition,
 use or disposition.
Because of inherent limitations in internal control,
errors 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 controls 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
misstatements caused by error 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 August
 31, 2002.
This report is intended solely for the information and
use of management and the Board of Directors 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.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
October 23, 2002

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
The Global Partners Income Fund Inc


	(2)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35988-35989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

[CBP Dec. 22-12]


Tuna Tariff-Rate Quota for Calendar Year 2022 Tuna Classifiable 
Under Subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS)

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Announcement of the quota quantity of tuna in airtight 
containers for Calendar Year 2022.

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

SUMMARY: Each year, the tariff-rate quota for tuna described in 
subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS), is calculated as a percentage of the tuna in airtight 
containers entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during 
the preceding calendar year. This document sets forth the tariff-rate 
quota for Calendar Year 2022.

DATES: The 2022 tariff-rate quota is applicable to tuna in airtight 
containers entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during 
the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.

[[Page 35989]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Peterson, Chief, Quota and 
Agricultural Branch, Interagency Collaboration Division, Trade Policy 
and Programs, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
Washington, DC 20229-1155, at (202) 384-8905 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8e0f9f9fde7fce9e8cbcad886ccc0db86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="10584141455f4451507372603e7478633e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It has been determined that 14,672,350 kilograms of tuna in 
airtight containers may be entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption during Calendar Year 2022, at the rate of 6.0 percent ad 
valorem under subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Any such tuna which is entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption during the current calendar year in 
excess of this quota will be dutiable at the rate of 12.5 percent ad 
valorem under subheading 1604.14.30, HTSUS.

    Dated: June 8, 2022.
AnnMarie R. Highsmith,
Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade.
[FR Doc. 2022-12723 Filed 6-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Christopher Kyle KEYS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-8177.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
Wylmina HETTINGA, Petitioner, v. Timothy P. LOUMENA.

No. 19-6596

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
# C_2018380EN.01000102.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9096 — Vallourec Tubes/Bpifrance Group/Vallourec Umbilicals)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 380/02)

On 12 October 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 French 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 32018M9096. 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 32018M9096. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Lavares Detroen WATKINS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5217

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Rehaif* v. *United States* , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019).
M. H., Petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES.

No. 19-8180.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30805 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LEILA J LEWIS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:06-CR-30025-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leila J. Lewis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1 967). Lewis has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0188 BANNER LEE BOYD,

Petitioner and Appellant,
v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. 

# FILED MAY 

## 2 5 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Cour State of +Vlontana ORDER

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with the Montana Rules of AppellateProcedure. AfterreviewingtheAppellant'sopeningbrieffiled on May 24, 2023, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the Rule 10. Rule 10(2) provides in part: Service ofall papers required. Copies ofall papers, including any transcript, filed by any party and not required by these rulesto be served by the clerk of the supreme court shall, at or before the time offiling, be served by the party on all other parties to the appeal or review. Service on a party represented by counsel shall be made on counsel. In criminal cases appealed by the defendant and in appeals relating to involuntary commitment and proceedingsregardingabusedor neglectedchildren, allbriefs, motions, and otherpapers, not including transcripts, shall be served on both the county attorneyandthe attorneygeneral. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10(4), in turn, provides: Proof of service. Papers presented for filing shall contain a certificate of service in the form ofa statement ofthe date and manner ofservice and of the names and addresses ofthe persons served, certified by the person who made service. Further, Montana Rule ofAppellate Procedure 12(1)(i) requires that thejudgment, order, findings of fact, conclusions of law, or decision in question, together with the 1 05/25/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0188memorandum opinion, ifany, in support thereof, be contained in Appellant's briefto this

Court. Mr. Boyd's briefcontains neither a Certificate ofService nor the underlying order
NNhich he is appealing. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that within thirty days ofthe date ofthis Order, Appellant shall file a copy ofthejudgment or order appealed from with the Clerk ofthis Court and serve one copy upon each counsel ofrecord in conformity with M. R. App. P. 10(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant serve all other parties in compliance with M.R. App. P. 10(2) in the manner provided by M. R. App. P 10(3) and shall provide a certificate ofservice that complies with M. R. App. P 10(4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, to assist Appellant in complying with Court rules, the Clerk is directed to provide him with a copy of the Civil Handbook for proceeding before the Supreme Court without an attorney. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing ofthejudgment or order appealed from. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk ofthis Court give notice ofthis Order by mail to Appellant and to all counsel ofrecord.
DATED this 25th day ofMay, 2023. For the Court,

Justice
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 48 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Mr. MARINO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of consecutive terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 48 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for 

3 two full consecutive terms shall again be a Senator until 

4 the date that is one year after the end of such second 

5 full consecutive term. 

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representa7 tive for six full consecutive terms shall again be a Rep8 resentative until the date that is one year after the end 

9 of the sixth full consecutive term. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, any 

11 term that began before the date of the ratification of this 

12 article shall not be included in determining the number 

13 of full consecutive terms that a person has been a Senator 

14 or Representative.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Ronald Blue WEST, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7660.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

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

```

----

Updated November 14, 2014
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/02/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      409,378
COMMITMENTS
 132,448  161,561  104,395  148,510  109,169  385,353  375,125   24,025   34,253

CHANGES FROM 08/26/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -4,987)
 -11,586   -5,981   -4,413   10,601    5,449   -5,398   -4,945      411      -42

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    32.4     39.5     25.5     36.3     26.7     94.1     91.6      5.9      8.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      203)
      62       82       80       42       41      152      166
```

----

Updated September 5, 2014
# C_2018230EN.01000101.xml

| 2.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8931 — Malakoff Médéric/Ilmarinen)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 230/01)

On 22 June 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:

1

| — | 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 32018M8931. 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 32018M8931. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---