alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Municipal Partners Fund Inc.


In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of
Municipal Partners Fund Inc., (hereafter referred to as the "Fund") for the
year ended December 31, 2000, 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
their 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 December 31, 2000.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors, management and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.


February 21, 2001

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Municipal Partners Fund Inc.

	(2)
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated May 15, 
1998 for the Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund 
Inc., incorporated herein by reference and to the 
references to our Firm under the headings "Financial 
Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Counsel and 
Auditors" in the Statement of Additional 
Information.




	KPMG 
Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
July 25, 1998
----

Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Kretschmer v Parliament

(Case T-229/06)

(2006/C 294/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elfriede Kretschmer (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a national expert on secondment to the European Parliament. Her initial contract for the period from 16 October 2003 to 15 October 2004 was renewed for the period from 16 October 2004 to 15 October 2005 and then again for a further two-year period from 16 October 2005 to 15 October 2007. By her application, she seeks annulment of the decision, brought to her attention by e-mail on 14 June 2006, not to grant her payment of the daily subsistence allowance in full with effect from 16 October 2003 and determining Overijse (Belgium) as her place of recruitment.

In support of her claim, the applicant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the 2002, 2004 and 2005 Ruless on national experts on secondment (SNEs) to the Parliament. The applicant maintains that, at the time when she was first recruited, her place of residence was in Germany and not in Belgium, which was considered by the Parliament authorities to be her place of recruitment. She submits that her secondment was approved by agreement between her authority from which she came (the Minister-President of the Land of North-Rhine Westphalia) and the Commission when she was first engaged as a temporary agent for the period from 1 September 2002 to 31 July 2003, which, in her view, constitutes evidence of her place of residence prior to her recruitment and at the times when her contracts were renewed. The applicant also maintains that the fact that she moved to Brussels to take up her duties as SNE and registered as a temporary resident in Brussels in accordance with Belgian law, cannot be regarded as constituting a change in ‘place of residence’, which presupposes fixed, permanent and settled establishment. In support of her position, she relies on the fact that she is subject to fixed-term recruitment for a maximum period of six years and that, at the end of that period she will, in principle, return to Germany to resume her duties as judge in the national courts. She therefore considers that throughout the period of employment as SNE her place of residence has been Germany and not Brussels.

With regard to the claim for compensation, the applicant considers that the European Parliament exceeded a reasonable period in responding to her requests for clarification and for a review of her situation and, furthermore, that such conduct is inconsistent with the requirements of the European Code of good administrative conduct. The applicant seeks an order that the defendant pay the token sum of one euro as compensation for the non-material damage thus caused. The applicant also seeks default interest on the sums due to her under the 2002, 2004 and 2005 rules on SNEs.

----
Candice LUE, Petitioner v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.

No. 19-260

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

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



Exhibit 31.2
 VIASPACE INC.
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VIASPACE Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we have:
     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):
   Date: November 13, 2007
    /s/ STEPHEN J. MUZIStephen J. MuziChief Financial Officer
# **Exhibit32.2**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph J. Jaeger, Chief FinancialOfficer 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.

Date: December 20, 2006
| By:    | /s/ Joseph J. Jaeger    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Joseph J. Jaeger        |   |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toPhysicians Formula Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Physicians FormulaHoldings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
Re: IN RE Sebastian ECCLESTON

No. 19-5580 (R46-06)

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 15, 2019

The petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
Exhibit 32.01

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 Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Biglari Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the
period ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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; 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/ Sardar Biglari                                         
|Sardar Biglari                                             
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
        April 29, 2020
|                                                           
|                                                           
|/s/ Bruce Lewis                                            
|Bruce Lewis                                                
|Controller
        April 29, 2020
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 08, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 08, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0312. DERRICK DEON BENTLEY v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CR01678
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERREDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(CHAPTER 98, TITLE 15 U.S.C. SS. 7241)**

I, William P.Brick, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.;

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

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; and

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)     Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

Date: November 2,2006
| /s/ WILLIAM P. BRICK                         |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| William P. Brick,  *Chief Executive Officer* |   |

 

----
TRAVELERS SERIES FUND INC.
10f-3 Report
May 1, 1999 through October 31, 1999


			Trade						         Purchase		%
of
Issuer			Date		Selling Dealer		Amount	Price
	Issue

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.	5/3/99		Goldman Sachs		$  535,300	$53.0000
	0.02%

The Seagram Company	6/15/99		Goldman Sachs		 1,538,838	50.1250
	0.08

Devon Energy Corp.	9/21/99		Schroder Wertheim		   243,000	40.5000
	0.06

William Communications	10/1/99		Lehman Brothers		     69,000	23.0000
		0.01
Group

AES Corp.		10/7/99		J.P. Morgan		 1,504,031	57.1875
	0.16
Dylan MAGLUILO, Petitioner v. LOUISIANA.

No. 18-9828

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 30, 2018 s0523

Order 

Clerk

May 30, 2018

156789 & (84)

LARRY SHEARS and MARGARET FRALICK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 156789

COA: 329776

Genesee CC: 14-103476-CZ

DOUGLAS BINGAMAN, individually and as

CITY OF FLINT TREASURER, DARNELL

EARLEY, individually and as CITY OF FLINT

EMERGENCY MANAGER, and CITY OF 

FLINT,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of Genesee Co Drain Comm’r 

Jeffrey Wright v Genesee Co (Docket No. 156579) is pending on appeal before this Court 

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.

CLEMENT, J., did not participate due to her prior involvement as chief legal 

counsel for the Governor.
# C_2018015EN.01000201.xml

| 17.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/2

---

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)

(2018/C 15/02)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation numbers | Authorised uses | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2018) 14 | 10 January 2018 | 1,2-dichloroethane
  EC No 203-458-1
  CAS No 107-06-2 | BASF SE, Carl-Bosch-Str. 38, 67056 Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany | REACH/17/34/0 | Industrial use as solvent and crystallisation medium in the synthesis of the plant protection active substance bentazone (EC No 246-585-8 and CAS No 25057-89) | 22 November 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 in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date |
| REACH/17/34/1 | Industrial use as solvent and crystallisation medium in the synthesis of the biocidal active substance flocoumafen (EC No: 421-960-0 and CAS No 90035-08-8) |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation numbers

Authorised uses

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2018) 14

10 January 2018

1,2-dichloroethane

EC No 203-458-1

CAS No 107-06-2

BASF SE, Carl-Bosch-Str. 38, 67056 Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany

REACH/17/34/0

Industrial use as solvent and crystallisation medium in the synthesis of the plant protection active substance bentazone (EC No 246-585-8 and CAS No 25057-89)

22 November 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 in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date

REACH/17/34/1

Industrial use as solvent and crystallisation medium in the synthesis of the biocidal active substance flocoumafen (EC No: 421-960-0 and CAS No 90035-08-8)

---

(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

---
Mahmoud THIAM, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-594

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Sll-tS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 05-14-01291-CR OFFENSE: 10.01

STYLE: Ex Parte Tony Yuan Li v. COUNTY: Collin

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: County Court at Law No. 5

DATE: 12/22/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 005-80387-2013

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Ex Parte Tony Yuan Li v.

APPELLANT'S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: /fij/jlwir

JUDGE: fa UM^^

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

51I-/S

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Deyoe R. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6513

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Maurice Patrick FORTUNE, III, Petitioner v. VIRGINIA;

No. 19-5510

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2018045EN.01000201.xml

| 7.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8781 — Waterland/De Nederlandse Energie Maatschappij)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 45/03)

On 2 February 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 32018M8781. 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 32018M8781. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---