alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GERALD C. MANN AUR’ILIN 11.-,?EHonorable G. G. Roam CountyAttorney Fort Bend County Richmond, Texas
Dear Sir8 Opinion No. O-4477 Ren Constructionof Subdivision (d) Section 3,Article 827a, Penal Code.
We acknowledge receipt of your request for an opinion of this department on the following facts: "If a truck is hauling a load of long steelwhich protrudesmore than twelve feet beyond the rear of said truck and in such case,for such trip, the operator of the truck nails two boards to the bed of the truck and lets them stiok out about twelm feet to the rear of the truck and then nails a board on the end of these two boards in order that the end of the steel roda would rest upon the same, and after delivering said steel at saiddestination, of ccurs~~then removing the boards nailed on the rear of the truck bed. Does this constitute a violation of the law within themeaning ofArticle %27a, iSection3, Subdivision (d) of our Penal Code?"

Subdivision (d), Section 3,Article 827a, supra, reads as follows:
"No train or combinationof vehicles or vehicle operated alone shall carry any load extendingmore than three (3) feet beyond the front thereof, nor9 except as hereinbeforeprovided,more than four (4) feet beyond the rear thereof."

The determining question is,what constitutesthe "rear" of a truck. Section 1, Ar~ticle10,Vernonss Texas Civil Statutes, provides as follows~ "The ordinary signification shall be applied to worda, except words of art or words connectedwith a particular trade or subjectmatter, tien they shall have the significationattached to them by experts in such art or trade,with reference to suoh subjectmatter."HonorableG. G. Roane, Page 2 (O-4477)

In 39 Texas Jurisprudence,page 197, Section 105, it is said that one of the primary and settledrules of constructionisthat words in commonuse, when contained in a statute,will be read according to their natural, ordinary and popularmeaning.

Wabster's InternationalDictionarydefinesthe term "rear" as being; "The back of anything, or the rear of a house; in the hindmost part; hindmost
. . 

### l

n Applying the above rules and definition,we are of the opinion that the "reartl

of the truck as used inthe statutemeans the end of the bed of the truck and not any extension such as is described in your request. We do not believe it was the intention of the Legislature to permit an evasion of the law by the nailing of a board on to the bed of the truck and thereby extending the length thereof. To hold that suchpracticewould not be a violation of saidArticle would render said law a useless thing. I%3cannot presume that the Legislature did a useless thing.

You are therefore advised that under the facts set forth in your request, such an operatorwould be violating subsection (d), Section 3, Article 827a, Penal Code.
Yours very truly ATTORNEY GWERAL OF TEXAS By /s/Richard H. Cocke Richard H. 6ccke

Assistant APPROVED M&R 18, 1942 /s/ GROVER SELLERS FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEYGENERAL Approved Opinion Committee ByBWB Chairman
(logo)  TRAMER, SHORE & ZWICK,CPA’s

ENSURINGEXCELLENCE

 

 

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACOCUNTING FIRM'S REPORTON COMPLIANCE**

**WITH SERVICING STANDARDS REQUIRED BY SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE**

**COMMISSION REGULATION AB**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andShareholders

Bernard Financial Corporation

dba Bernard FinancialServicing Group

 

 

We have examined management'sassertion about Bernard Financial Corporation's (The Company) compliance with thefollowing servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB: 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(1)(v),1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi),1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii); 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4(iv),1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x),1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xiv). TheCompany has determined that these servicing criteria are applicable to the activitiesit performs with respect to the asset­backed securities transactions beingserviced as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 and for the years then ended. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on Bernard Financial Corporation's compliancebased on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with attestation standards established by the Public Company AccountingOversight Board of the United States and, accordingly, included examining, on atest basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteriaspecified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessaryin the circumstances. We believe that our examination provided a reasonable basisfor our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company'scompliance with the servicing criteria.

 

Our examination disclosed no materialnoncompliance with the servicing criteria specified above. In our opinion,management's assertion that Bernard Financial Corporation complied with theaforementioned servicing criteria for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

This report is intended for theinformation of management; however, this report is a matter of public record andits distribution is not limited.

 

 

/s/ Tramer, Shore & Zwick

 

Cleveland, Ohio 

January 31, 2019

 

 

23775 Commerce Park, Suite 1 •Beachwood, Ohio 44122 • Phone (216) 765-8110 • Fax (216) 765-8166
Tiffany R. BYRD, Petitioner, v. Frederick BOUTTE, Warden.

No. 19-7583.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IN RE Lee R. COMIER, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 19-6014

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
the Smith Barney Funds, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements
of Smith Barney Funds, Inc. (the Funds) consisting of Short-Term
High Grade Bond Fund, Large Cap Value Fund, and U.S. Government
Securities Fund for the year ended December 31, 2002, we
considered their 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 Funds 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 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, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Funds 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
February 12, 2003
Durant BROCKETT, et al., Petitioners, v. Matthew E. ORSO, as Receiver FOR REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC, dba ZeekRewards.com.

No. 19-427

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15385

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cr-00083-GAP-KRS-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

WILLIE JAMES MCKNIGHT, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 8, 2015)

Before HULL, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-15385 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

H. Kyle Fletcher, appointed counsel for Willie McKnight in this criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 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 McKnight’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-15385 Date Filed: 06/08/2015 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2018121EN.01001401.xml

| 6.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/14

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)

(2018/C 121/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 28.02.2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.46515 (2016/N) |
| Member State | Hungary |
| Region | Hungary | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Közösségi agrármarketing támogatás módosítása |
| Legal basis | a közösségi agrármarketing támogatások felhasználásának részletes feltételei; |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Aid for knowledge transfer and information actions in the agricultural sector, Aid for advisory services in the agricultural sector, Aid for co-operation in the agricultural sector, Aid for promotion measures in favour of agricultural products |
| Form of aid | Subsidized services |
| Budget | Overall budget: HUF 3 000 (in millions) |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration (period) | until 30.06.2021 |
| Economic sectors | Crop and animal production; hunting and related service activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Földművelésügyi Minisztérium; Nemzeti Fejlesztési Minsztérium |
| H-1055 Budapest, Kossuth Lajos tér 11.; H-1011 Budapest, Fő utca 44-50. |

Date of adoption of the decision

28.02.2018

Aid number

SA.46515 (2016/N)

Member State

Hungary

Region

Hungary

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Közösségi agrármarketing támogatás módosítása

Legal basis

a közösségi agrármarketing támogatások felhasználásának részletes feltételei;

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Aid for knowledge transfer and information actions in the agricultural sector, Aid for advisory services in the agricultural sector, Aid for co-operation in the agricultural sector, Aid for promotion measures in favour of agricultural products

Form of aid

Subsidized services

Budget

Overall budget: HUF 3 000 (in millions)

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

until 30.06.2021

Economic sectors

Crop and animal production; hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Földművelésügyi Minisztérium; Nemzeti Fejlesztési Minsztérium

H-1055 Budapest, Kossuth Lajos tér 11.; H-1011 Budapest, Fő utca 44-50.

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 15 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 15

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2013

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, 
February 15, 2013, through Thursday, February 21, 2013, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 
25, 2013, or until the time of any

              

 reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
on Friday, February 15, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, February 25, 2013, or such 
other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2019251EN.01001401.xml

| 26.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/14

---

Corrigendum to Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 132 of 13 April 2018
  )

(2019/C 251/07)

On page 18, in the fourth paragraph of point 3.5:

for:

‘“Parmigiano Reggiano” portions may be packaged at the same business premises on which they are cut.’,

read:

read:

‘Portions of “Parmigiano Reggiano” may be packaged in the retail outlet in which they are prepared.’.

---
Monicah Okoba OPATI, In Her Own Right, and as Executrix of the Estate of Caroline Setla Opati, Deceased, et al., Petitioners v. REPUBLIC OF SUDAN, et al.

No. 17-1268

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.

Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Eduard BANGIYEV, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6486

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund, Inc.

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of
Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") for the year
ended September 30, 2000 (on which we have issued our report dated
November 10, 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, and not to provide assurance on the Fund's 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 any internal control, misstatements
due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projections
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods are subject to
the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the Fund's internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the 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 the Fund's internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities, that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of September 30,
2000.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Smith Barney
Fundamental Value Fund, Inc., and the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
November 10, 2000
Donald Lee CURTIS, Petitioner v. Erik A. HOOKS, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

No. 19-6404

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2018027EN.01000101.xml

| 25.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8672 — easyJet/Certain Air Berlin assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 27/01)

On 12 December 2017, 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 32017M8672. 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 32017M8672. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Sergio Saldivar GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5772

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Susan E. PATTISHALL, Petitioner v. Vinton G. CERF, et al.;

No. 19-5179

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Dante OVERBY, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA; and Dante Overby, petitioner, v. Pennsylvania.

No. 18-8828.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 108 

To provide that rates of pay for Members of Congress shall not be adjusted 

under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 

in the year following any fiscal year in which outlays of the United 

States exceed receipts of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2013 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that rates of pay for Members of Congress shall 

not be adjusted under section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 in the year following 

any fiscal year in which outlays of the United States 

exceed receipts of the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Member Pay Freeze 

5 Act’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 108 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZA2 TION ACT OF 1946. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(a)(2) of the Legisla4 tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(C) An adjustment in rates of pay may be made 

7 under this paragraph in a year only if the aggregate out8 lays of the United States during the last completed fiscal 

9 year did not exceed the aggregate receipts of the United 

10 States during such fiscal year, as determined by the Con11 gressional Budget Office.’’. 

12 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 601(a)(2)(A) 

13 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘Subject to subpara14 graph (B),’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to subparagraphs (B) 

15 and (C),’’. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

17 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

18 respect to any adjustment which, but for this Act, would 

19 otherwise become effective on or after January 1, 2013. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with