alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.17    
    


 
 

WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT'S
  MANAGEMENT COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS
  PURSUANT TO ITEM 601(b)(10)(iii)(A)    
    


        On July 30, 2003, the Registrant's Board of Directors approved management compensatory arrangements (that are not set forth in any formal document) that
provided for an aggregate issuance of 548,627 shares of the Registrant's common stock in consideration of past services provided by certain employees in the third quarter of 2003. In accordance
therewith, on July 30, 2003, the Registrant's Board of Directors approved, and the Registrant issued, an aggregate of 548,627 shares of common stock to 13 employees of the Registrant identified
by the Board of Directors, including two employees who were named executive officers. The value of the consideration deemed received by the Registrant for each share granted was $0.01 per share, in
accordance with Delaware law. 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.17


WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT'S MANAGEMENT COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS PURSUANT TO ITEM 601(b)(10)(iii)(A)
November 17, 1998


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

RE:	Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc. (the "Registrant")
	File No. 2-74288


Dear Sirs:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as 
amended, please accept this letter as certification that the 
Prospectus for the Registrant does not differ from that contained 
in Post-Effective Amendment No. 52 filed on November 12, 1998:

Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of your receipt 
of this filing.

Very truly yours,


/s/Robert Nelson
Robert Nelson
Assistant Secretary
# Official Journal C 325/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 325 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 593 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 325

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 593 September 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 325/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2016/C 325/02 | Special Report No 13/2016 — ‘EU Assistance for strengthening the public administration in Moldova’ | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 325/01

Euro exchange rates

1

Court of Auditors

2016/C 325/02

Special Report No 13/2016 — ‘EU Assistance for strengthening the public administration in Moldova’

2

---

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

EN
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CertificatePursuant to Rule 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Paul Block, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of MerisantCompany (the “registrant”);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: May 15, 2007
|        | /s/ Paul Block                            |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  Paul Block               |   |
|   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
Independent Auditors' Consent



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

We consent to the use of our report dated February 9, 1999, with 
Smith Barney Money Funds, Inc., incorporated herein by reference 
and to the references to our Firm under the headings "Financial 
Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Independent Auditors" in the 
Statement of Additional Information.



	KPMG LLP


New York, New York
April 27, 1999
----

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

| /s/ Richard W. McCullough                          |   | December 15, 2010 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                               |   | December 15, 2010 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |

----
Tarell MCILWAIN, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9393

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 3.2



CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

MONEY4GOLD HOLDINGS, INC.





Money4Gold Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, certifies that:



1.

The name of the corporation is Money4Gold Holdings, Inc.



2.

A Certificate of Amendment was filed by the Secretary of State of Delaware on August 26, 2008 and the Certificate of Amendment requires correction as permitted by Section 103(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.



3.

The inaccuracy or defect of the Certificate of Amendment is:



As a result of a scriveners error, the rights, preferences and limitations of the preferred stock was inadvertently omitted.



4.

Article 4 of the Certificate of Amendment is corrected to read as follows:



The total number of shares of stock, which this corporation is authorized to issue is: Two Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares of common stock, par value $.0001 per share, and Twenty-Five Million (25,000,000) shares of preferred stock, par value $.0001 per share.  The preferred stock shall have such rights, preferences and limitations as may be set from time to time by resolution of the board of directors and the filing of a Certificate of Designation as required by the Delaware General Corporation Law.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Correction as of the 5th day of November, 2008.



| |                           |                                                      
| | ------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
| | MONEY4GOLD HOLDINGS, INC.
| |                           |                                                      
| |                           |                                                      
| | By:                       | /s/ Daniel Brauser                                   
| |                           | Daniel Brauser, President and Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2701

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

2004 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, VIN# 2G1WW12E349209700

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Joey Antwan Smith

lllllllllllllllllllllClaimant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: June 25, 2014

 Filed: July 1, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
In this civil forfeiture action, Joey Smith appeals the district court’s denial of 1

his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the judgment. 

Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude

that Smith did not present a valid basis for post-judgment relief, and that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying his post-judgment motion. See Murphy

v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court’s denial of

Rule 60(b)(6) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion); see also Arnold v. Wood,

238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (because Rule 60(b) motion cannot substitute for

appeal, appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not present underlying

judgment for appellate review; Rule 60(b) is not vehicle for simple reargument on

merits); Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir. 1997) (attorney’s ignorance

or carelessness does not constitute excusable neglect). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.

-2-
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 7 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding 

presidential election voting rights for residents of all United States territories and commonwealths. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2013 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN (for herself and Ms. BORDALLO) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States regarding presidential election voting rights for 

residents of all United States territories and commonwealths. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

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


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HJ 7 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United 

5 States to vote in the election for President and Vice Presi6 dent shall not be denied or abridged by the United States 

7 or by any State on account of residency in a territory or 

8 commonwealth of the United States. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en10 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
C:\Documents and Settings\rf17794\Local Settings\Temporary
Internet Files\OLK4AB\Italy NSAR.doc
Sub-Item 77C

At its annual meeting on January 30, 2003, The Italy Fund
Inc., the Registrant, submitted its Form of Plan of
Liquidation and Dissolution to a vote of shareholders. The
vote tally is submitted below.  The Registrant incorporates
by reference its Form of Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution
to Registrant's Proxy Statement dated January 30, 2003 filed
on December 30, 2002 (Accession No. 0001133228-02-000289).

                     THE ITALY FUND INC.

                        PROXY BALLOT

                  MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

                      JANUARY 30, 2003

The undersigned, proxies for shareholders of The Italy Fund
Inc. (the Fund) entitled to vote an aggregate of 4,961,786
shares of the Fund at this meeting, hereby votes such shares
as follows:

1.   On the proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund:

       Shares     Shares
       Voted      Voted      Shares     Broker
        For      Against    Abstainin  Non-votes
      Proposal   Proposal       g
       No. 1      No. 1

     2,847,301  99,638.99   22,233.19  1,511,606
        .251        0           3        .000

2.   On the proposal to elect three directors to the Board
     of Directors of the Fund, each to hold office until his
     successor shall have been elected and qualified:


                       Shares Voted    Shares      Shares
     Name              For Election     Voted     Abstaini
                                       Against       ng
                                      Election

     R. Jay Gerken     3,824,451.266 656,328.16       0
                                          8
     Paul Hardin       4,428,022.465 52,756.969       0
     George Pavia      4,427,749.266 53,030.168       0
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Linda Stafford v. Charles Ray Stafford

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 01060

- CV

Trial court case number: 2000

- 13812

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris Coun ty

On June 5, 2014, appellant Linda Stafford filed a motion for extension of time to file the brief for appellant and motion for an order to supplement the appellate record. The motion is

GRANTED

.
The clerk of the district court is ORDERED to suppleme nt the appellate record, within 20 days of the date of this order, with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, if any, including the rendition or findings signed by the court on October 8, 2013 which was faxed by the court to the attorneys of record on October 9, 2013.

Appellant’s brief will be due 20 days after the date the district court clerk files the supplemental record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Rebeca Huddle

X Act ing individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 12, 2014
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2435

___________

Frances L. Kearns, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., * Western District of Missouri.

Postmaster General, United *

States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 7, 1997

 Filed: April 2, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frances L. Kearns appeals the district court's grant of summary

1

judgment to the United States Postal Service (USPS) on her claim under the

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. We affirm.

Kearns was a part-time flex clerk (PTF clerk) at the Drexel, Missouri

facility. As such, she was guaranteed two hours of employment every two

weeks, but from 1976 to 1993, she had worked approximately nineteen hours

per week. In 1993, a second PTF clerk was hired, and Kearns's hours were

reduced to approximately twelve or fourteen per week. As relevant to this

appeal, Kearns claimed
-2-

the reduction was based on her relationship with her disabled parents, in

violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

This court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de

novo, applying the same standard as the district court; summary judgment

is appropriate when, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Earnest v. Courtney,

64 F.3d 365, 366-67 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

We find that the USPS's actions in hiring a second clerk and reducing

Kearns's hours accordingly did not constitute an adverse employment action

that violated the Rehabilitation Act. Kearns was guaranteed only two hours

of work per pay period, and the USPS provided unrebutted evidence that a

second clerk was hired to enable the post office to remain open in the

event both the postmaster and Kearns were absent. Cf. Burns v. City of

Columbus, 91 F.3d 836, 841-42 (6th Cir. 1996) (handicap may not be sole

reason for adverse employment action).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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
National 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40862

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTONIO PEREZ-LUNA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-1643-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Following his guilty plea to illegal presence in the United States following

deportation, Antonio Perez-Luna was sentenced to 46 months in prison, which

was within the applicable guidelines range. On appeal, he argues that the

district court committed procedural error by failing to address his arguments for

a lesser sentence and that the sentence imposed was substantively

unreasonable.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 2, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-40862 Document: 00511191139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2010
No. 09-40862

“[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular

case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The requirement that the district court explain

its sentence may be satisfied if the district court listens to arguments and

indicates that a sentence within the guidelines range is appropriate. Id. at 357-

59. Here, the district court heard counsel’s arguments for a lesser sentence and

stated that a sentence within the applicable guidelines range satisfied the

factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-

26 (5th Cir. 2008).

Perez-Luna suggests that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of his family ties, his lengthy residence in the United States, and his benign

reasons for returning to the country. “A discretionary sentence imposed within

a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Although

Perez-Luna contends that this court should not apply the presumption of

reasonableness because the 16-level enhancement authorized under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2 is not empirically based, we have rejected such a contention. See United

States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009).

The fact that this court “might reasonably have concluded that a different

sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We conclude there is “no reason to disturb” the

presumption of reasonableness in this case.” See Rodriguez, 523 F.3d at 526.

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-40862 Document: 00511191139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2010