alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Smith
Barney Managed Governments Fund Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended July 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 the 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 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 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 internal control and its operation, including
controls for safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, 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 the
specified parties.



New York, New York
September 11, 2000
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-222746) on Form S-8 of resTORbio, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2018, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of resTORbio, Inc. as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of operations, convertible redeemable preferred stock and stockholders (deficit) equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2017 and the period from July 5, 2016 (inception) through December 31, 2016, and the related notes (collectively, the “consolidated financial statements”), which report appears in the December 31, 2017 annual report on Form 10-K of resTORbio, Inc.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

March 29, 2018
SMITH BARNEY CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALS FUND
                        10f-3 REPORT
         September 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998
                              
                              

                    Trade               Par
Purchase  % of
Issuer                   Date Selling Dealer Amount
Price     Issue

Puerto Rico Infrastructure         11/21/97  Goldman Sachs
$7,000,000     $97.631   3.38%
5.000% due 7/1/2016

California Housing Auth.      1/20/98   Lehman Brothers
3,000,000  100.00   2.78
5.150% due 2/1/2018
Slip Op. 01- 26 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________ : HAGGAR APPAREL COMPANY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Before: MUSGRAVE, JUDGE : THE UNITED STATES, : Court No. 93-06-00343 : Defendant. : ____________________________________:
JUDGMENT

In Haggar Apparel Co. v. United States , 20 CIT 842, 938 F. Supp. 868 (1996) (DiCarlo, C.J.), the court entered judgment for the plaintiff, holding that it was entitled to a duty allowance on the subject merchandise under TSUS 807.00 and HTSUS 9802.00.80. See20 CIT at 851, 938 F. Supp. at 875. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Haggar Apparel Co. v. United States , 127 F.3d 1460, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Subsequently the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit’s decision. See United States v. Haggar Apparel Co. , 526 U.S. 380, 395 (2000). On remand, the Federal Circuit held that Customs’ determination that the pants at issue do not qualify for the partial exception from duty allowed by HTSUS 9802.00.80 (and, in prior years, TSUS 807.00) must be sustained. The Court of International Trade’s judgment to the contrary is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the United States. Haggar Apparel Co. v. United States , 222 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is herebyCourt No. 93-06-00343 Page 2
ORDERED that the court’s prior entry of judgment in favor of Haggar Apparel Company is withdrawn, and it is further ORDERED that the United States Customs Service’s determination that the apparel at issue does not qualify for the partial exception from duty allowed by TSUS 807.00 and HTSUS 9802.00.80 is sustained.

______________________________________ R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, JUDGE
Date: March 5, 2001 New York, New York
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Telewest Global, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify,
to such officers knowledge, that:



This quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: June 9, 2004



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Neil Smith         
|Neil Smith             
|Chief Financial Officer
Tatyana Evgenievna DREVALEVA, Petitioner, v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.

No. 19-8012.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Trent S. GRIFFIN, Sr., Petitioner v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 19-6387

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
October 3, 1996

VIA EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


ATTN.:		Office of Filings, Information and Consumer Services

RE:			Smith Barney Adjustable Rate Government Income Fund 
(the 				"Fund")
			File No. 33-47782, Accession Number:  0000091155-96-
000390

Gentlemen:

	Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as 
amended, please accept this letter as certification that the prospectus 
and statement of additional information of the Fund do not differ from 
those contained in Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 (the "Amendment") to 
the Fund's Registration Statement on Form N-1A.  This Amendment was 
filed electronically on September 30, 1996 and became effective 
immediately.

	Any comments on this filing should be directed to the undersigned 
at (212) 816-5770.  Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence 
of your receipt of this filing.

						Very truly yours,
						SMITH BARNEY ADJUSTABLE 		
						RATE GOVERNMENT INCOME FUND.


						/s/ Michael Kocur
						Michael Kocur
						Assistant Secretary




g:\funds\arms\1996\secdocs\497j.doc
Independent Auditors Report



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of the Smith Barney Institutional Cash Management Fund, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Institutional Cash Management Fund, Inc. (the
Fund) for the year ended May 31, 2001, we considered its
internal control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

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

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

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that 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 May 31, 2001.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, 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.




New York, New York
July 9, 2001
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2018-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
          AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
          included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
    
 BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLCBy:
          /s/ Stefan KramerName:
          Stefan KramerTitle:
          Vice President – Finance & CFO
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — Thommes v Commission

(Case T-195/03) (1)

(Temporary agents - Installation allowance - Change in place of employment - Refusal to acknowledge installation of the family - Recovery of sum not due)

(2005/C 281/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Gustav Thommes (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M. Thewes and V. Wiot, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Application for

Application for annulment of the Commission's decisions relating to the recovery of a part of the installation allowance paid to the applicant in the context of a change in his place of employment and the refusal to grant him an installation allowance in connection with a further re-assignment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.

----
PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner v. Michael J. HICKS.

No. 19-426

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District denied.
# Official Journal L 216/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 216 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5722 July 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 216

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5722 July 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2014/481/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 14 July 2014 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union with regard to the participation in the CARIFORUM-EU Consultative Committee provided for by the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2014/481/EU

*

Council Decision of 14 July 2014 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union with regard to the participation in the CARIFORUM-EU Consultative Committee provided for by the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § No. 4:23-CR-III

§ Judge VAtt Ltk/vt

LANE KOROLY §

FACTUAL BASIS

The defendant, LANE KOROLY, hereby stipulates and agrees that at all times

relevant to the Information, the following facts were true:

1. lam the same person charged in the Information, and I am pleading guilty to

Count One, Engaging in the Business Without a License (Firearms).

2. The events described in the Information occurred in the Eastern District of Texas

and elsewhere.

3. lam not currently, nor have I ever been licensed to deal firearms within the

meaning of Chapter 44, Title 18 United States Code.

4. From March 2021 through September 2021,1 willfully engaged in the business of

dealing firearms. During that time, I sold approximately 118 firearms for profit.

5. Most firearms that were purchased from Thomas Harris, Sporting Arms Company

FFL, were done so with Harris full knowledge that they would be resold for profit

and that I was not the true purchaser/transferee. With Harris full knowledge and

aid, I would falsely state on the 4473 that I was the true purchaser/transferee.

Factual Basis - Page 1

Case 4:23-cr-00221-ALM-AGD Document 10 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 25
DEFENDANT S SIGNATURE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I have read or had read to me this factual basis and have discussed it with my

attorney. I fully understand the contents of it and agree without reservation that it

accurately describes the events and my acts.

Dated: 

LANE KOROLY

Defendant

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL S SIGNATURE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I have read this factual basis and have reviewed it with the defendant. Based upon

my discussions with the defendant, I am satisfied that the defendant understands it.

Dated: 

Factual Basis - Page 2

Case 4:23-cr-00221-ALM-AGD Document 10 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26
exv10w31



 



Exhibit 10.31



Summary of Senior Management Incentive Plan



The Company’s Senior Management Incentive Plan (“SMIP”) provides that
participating management employees may receive a percentage of their salary as
a bonus. Payment may be in the form of cash or stock. The President,
Executive Vice President, Senior Vice Presidents, and certain other key
employees participate in SMIP. SMIP payments are calculated as a percentage of
base compensation, based on performance by the Company relative to criteria
that are established and weighted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors. These criteria are based on measurements of the Company’s
performance deemed to be relevant to senior level managers, and to a level of
performance that is deemed to be attainable, indicative of corporate
accomplishment, and likely to lead to corporate success. They may be based on
general corporate objectives, or may on specific projects or objectives
relevant to the particular year. Not all participants necessarily participate
in all criteria or to the full extent of the plan. Criteria for the most
senior SMIP participants may include measurements of stock price performance
and corporate earnings. Maximum payouts are established on an individual
basis. Frequency of payment will be determined by the Compensation Committee.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 16, 2003

Before

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 02-1662 & 02-1949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v.

MICHAEL BERKLEY and
VAL JEAN HILLMAN,

Defendants-Appellants

. Appeal from the United States

District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 00 CR 31

Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge

.

ON REHEARING

Michael Berkley’s motion to correct our opinion of June 20, 2003, is GRANTED. Accordingly, the fourth paragraph of the opinion is amended to read:

Hillman and Michael Berkley, a loan processor for UMG, were charged along

with six others in

a seven-count indictment. After their six cohorts pleaded guilty,

Hillman and Berkley went to trial. A jury found Hillman guilty on three counts of

wire fraud affecting a financial instit ution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343. The jury also found Berkley guilty on one of two similar counts. The district court

sentenced both men to 27 months imprisonment and ordered them to pay hundreds

of thousands of dollars in restitution. Hillman and Berkley appeal their convictions, essentially challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Because Hillman failed to lodge a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence or within

7 days after the adverse verdict, he must show plain error to prevail. S ee United States v. Taylor , 226 F.3d 593, 596 (7th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we will reverse his

conviction only if we find a manifest miscarriage of justice. Berkley’s conviction is subjec t to the usual standard of review. We will reverse his conviction only if “the

record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, upon which a rational

trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” U nited States v. Starks

, 309 F.3d 1017, 1021 (7th Cir. 2002).

With the granting of this motion, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

XZERIA DAMONT JETER, a/k/a D, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(7:07-cr-01467-HFF-25) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Bruce A. Byrholdt, CHAPMAN, BYRHOLDT & YON, LLP, Anderson, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, III, United States 

Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 A jury convicted Xzeria Damont Jeter of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Based on 

the drug quantity found by the jury and an enhancement filed by 

the Government, Jeter faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 

months’ imprisonment. However, in exchange for Jeter’s waiver 

of his appellate rights, the Government withdrew the enhancement 

and Jeter consequently received a significantly lower sentence 

of 121 months’ imprisonment. Jeter now appeals, arguing that at 

trial the Government failed to disclose certain evidence, in 

violation of United States v. Brady, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The 

Government responds that the appellate waiver should be enforced 

and this appeal dismissed. We agree. 

 A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter, 

492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district 

court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his 

right to appeal, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. 

United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); 

United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). 

The question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to 
3 

appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United 

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 

 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Jeter knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. 

Because Jeter’s valid and enforceable waiver of appellate rights 

precludes review of his conviction issue, we dismiss the appeal. 

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. 

DISMISSED
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Petitioners v. Vijayakumar THURAISSIGIAM

No. 19-161

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.