alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use in Post-Effective Amendment No. 29 to Registration 
Statement 
No. 2-71469 of Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund, Inc. of our report dated 
November 1, 1996, incorporated by reference in the Statement of Additional 
Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the 
references to us under the headings Financial Highlights" in the Prospectus, 
which is a part of such Registration Statement, and Counsel and Auditors" in 
the Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
January 24, 1997
Independent Auditors' Report



To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees
of Smith Barney Muni Funds:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the
Florida Portfolio of Smith Barney Muni Funds (the "Fund") for the year ended
March 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 March 31, 2001.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the
Board of Trustees 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
May 8, 2001
John M. WASSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 19M77

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 January 19, 2017

jam

Order 

Clerk

January 19, 2017

155143 (66)

TINA MARIE STOLL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 155143

COA: 328998

EMMET CIRCUIT COURT Emmet CC: 15-104919-CZ

CHIEF JUDGE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $12.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$363.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of K-Fed Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kay M. Hoveland, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that:

        1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections
                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                amended, and

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


Date: November 9, 2004                 /s/ Kay M. Hoveland
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Kay M. Hoveland
                                       Chief Executive Officer
Bruce Duane WALTON, Petitioner v. Tracy RAY, Warden;

No. 18-9374

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Cedric FLOYD, Petitioner v. ALABAMA

No. 18-9838

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.
# C_2018007EN.01001201.xml

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/12

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2018/C 7/10)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 6.11.2017 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 6.11.2017-31.12.2017 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | PLE/7FG. |
| Species | Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) |
| Zone | VIIf and VIIg |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 41/TQ127 |

Date and time of closure

6.11.2017

Duration

6.11.2017-31.12.2017

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

PLE/7FG.

Species

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

Pleuronectes platessa

Zone

VIIf and VIIg

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

41/TQ127

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

                        July 25, 2002



Proposal 1:  Election of Directors


Common Stock (Common Stock voting as a class)
                 Shares   Percentage    Shares   Percentage
Name             Voted        of       Withheld      of
                  For       Shares                 Shares
                            Voted                   Voted


Allan      J.  15,277,738   97.248    432,347.46    2.752
Bloostein         .853                    3
Dwight     B.  15,267,113   97.180    442,972.61    2.820
Crane             .207                    3


Preferred Stock (Preferred Stock voting as a class)
                          Percentage    Shares   Percentage
Name             Shares       of       Withheld      of
               Voted For    Shares                 Shares
                            Voted                   Voted


Robert     A.    1,597      99.813        3         0.200
Frankel
William.         1,597      99.813        3         0.200
Hutchinson



Common and Preferred Stock (Common Stock and Preferred Stock
voting as a single class)
                          Percentage    Shares   Percentage
Name             Shares       of       Withheld      of
               Voted For    Shares                 Shares
                            Voted                   Voted


Paolo      M.  15,239,873   97.007    470,212.61    2.993
Cucchi            .703                    3
Dr.      Paul  15,262,436   97.151    447,649.87    2.849
Hardin            .444                    2
Heath      B.  15,269,959   97.198    440,126.46    2.802
McLendon          .853                    3
George     M.  15,263,004   97.154    447,081.61    2.846
Pavia             .703                    3
R. Jay Gerken  15,273,120   97.219    436,965.87    2.781
                  .44                     2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00717-CR

Stephany Schubert, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF CALDWELL COUNTY

NO. 38404, HONORABLE EDWARD L. JARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Stephany Schubert has filed a motion for extension of time to file her

notice of appeal. In her motion, she explains that the trial court’s judgment placing her on deferred

adjudication was signed on October 19, 2009, and that the notice of appeal, although prepared on

October 19, was inadvertently never filed until December 4, 2009. The deadline for filing the notice

of appeal was November 18, and the fifteen-day extension period expired on December 3. Because

the notice of appeal was not filed until December 4, after the deadline and extension period had run,

we cannot exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 209, 210 & n.3

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (“If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain

jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.”); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996) (“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction.”).
2

Because the notice of appeal was not filed within the thirty-day deadline or the

fifteen-day extension period that followed, we have no choice but to deny the motion for extension

of time and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 28, 2010

Do Not Publish
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 7, 2008 | By:    | /s/                David A. Gillespie                                                            |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | David                A. Gillespie                                                                |
|                                  |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S.Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities****Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2018, exceptfor****servicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respectto the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established bythe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise thePlatform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred eitherprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidencewe obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2018, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 31, 2018
Lee HOPE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6834

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# L_2004346EN.01S00301.xml

| 23.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 346/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 346/s3

---

1 November 2004 — New version of EUR-Lex!

europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

The new site incorporates the Celex service and provides free and easy access in 20 languages to the largest documentary database on EU law.

---
September 16,
1997
Smith Barney Managed Government Fund Inc.
388 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013

                   Re:  Rule 24f-2 Notice
                              
Gentlemen:

    In connection with the filing by Smith Barney Managed
Government Fund Inc., a Maryland corporation (the "Fund"),
of a Notice (the "Notice"), pursuant to Rule 24f-2 (the
"Rule") under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
(the "Act"), for the Fund's fiscal year ended July 31, 1997,
the undersigned hereby provides the legal opinion required
by that Rule.

     In accordance with the Rule, the Fund has registered an
indefinite number of shares of common stock, $0.001 par
value, under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"1933 Act"). The purpose of the Notice is to make definite
the registration of 13,124,166 shares of the Fund (the
"Shares") sold in reliance upon the Rule during the fiscal
year ended July 31, 1997.

     The undersigned is Associate General Counsel of Smith
Barney Mutual Funds Management Inc., the Fund's Investment
Adviser and Administrator, and in such capacity, from time
to time and for certain purposes, acts as counsel to the
Fund. He has examined copies of the Fund's Articles of
Incorporation, its By-Laws, resolutions adopted by its Board
of Directors, and such other records and documents as have
been deemed necessary for purposes of this opinion.
Furthermore, he has examined a Certificate of the Controller
of the Fund to the effect that the Fund received the cash
consideration for each of the Shares in accordance with the
aforementioned organizational documents and resolutions.

     On the basis of the foregoing, and assuming all of the
Shares were sold in accordance with the terms of the Fund's
Prospectus in effect at the time of sale, he is of the
opinion that the Shares have been duly authorized and
validly issued and are fully paid and non-assessable.  This
opinion is for the limited purposes expressed above and
should not be deemed to be an expression of opinion as to
compliance with the 1933 Act, the 1940 Act or applicable
State "blue sky" laws in connection with the sales of the
Shares.


                                        Very truly yours,


                                        Michael Kocur
                                        Associate General
                                        Counsel
                                        Smith Barney Mutual
Funds
Management Inc.
TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner v. FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC;

Texas Brine Company, LLC, Petitioner v. Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al.;

Texas Brine Company, LLC, Petitioner v. Crosstex Energy Services, LP, et al.;

Texas Brine Company, LLC, Petitioner v. Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC;

Texas Brine Company, LLC, Petitioner v. Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.

No. 19-459

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 165/6 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 165 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 486 July 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 165

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 486 July 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 165/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 165/2 | Notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation under Council Regulations (EC) No 3285/94 and (EC) No 519/94 concerning imports of frozen strawberries | 2 |
| 2005/C 165/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3823 — MAG/Ferrovial Aeropuertos/Exeter Airport) (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 165/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 165/2

Notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation under Council Regulations (EC) No 3285/94 and (EC) No 519/94 concerning imports of frozen strawberries

2

2005/C 165/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3823 — MAG/Ferrovial Aeropuertos/Exeter Airport) (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Howard Lee WHITE, Petitioner v. Romeo ARANAS, et al.

No. 19-5991

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

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