alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 11, 1997
Smith Barney Adjustable Rate Government Income Fund
388 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013

                   Re:  Rule 24f-2 Notice
                              
Gentlemen:

    In connection with the filing by Smith Barney Adjustable
Rate Government Fund, a Massachusetts business trust (the
"Trust"), 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 May 31
1997, the undersigned hereby provides the legal opinion
required by that Rule.

     In accordance with the Rule, the trust 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 15,827,814 shares of the trust (the
"Shares") sold in reliance upon the Rule during the fiscal
year ended May 31, 1997.

     The undersigned is Assistant General Counsel of Smith
Barney Mutual Funds Management Inc., the trust's Investment
Adviser and Administrator, and in such capacity, from time
to time and for certain purposes, acts as counsel to the
trust. He has examined copies of the trust'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 trust to the effect that the trust 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 trust'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.
Darrell Lamar MARSHALL, Petitioner v. George Caram STEEH, et al.

No. 19-6470

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.
----

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 15 Member States applicable as from 1 January 2005 and historic recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable from 1 August 1997

Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1) and the Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 273, 9.9.1997, p. 3)

(2005/C 88/04)

The current recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the other Member States and the historic interest rates applicable from 1 May 2004 will be published separately.

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1319 

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to expand coverage under plans 

of insurance available under such Act to include losses to an insured 

commodity when, as a result of a federally-imposed quarantine, the 

commodity must be destroyed, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

Mr. MCNERNEY (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD, and Mr. 

VARGAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to expand coverage under plans of insurance available under such Act 

to include losses to an insured commodity when, as a 

result of a federally-imposed quarantine, the commodity 

must be destroyed, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Containing Risk, Of5 fering Protection Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1319 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF QUARANTINE LOSSES TO INSURED 

2 COMMODITIES UNDER THE FEDERAL CROP 

3 INSURANCE ACT. 

4 (a) EXPANSION TO INCLUDE QUARANTINE

5 LOSSES.—Section 508(a)(1) of the Federal Crop Insur6 ance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(1)) is amended in the second 

7 sentence— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘be due to drought’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘be due— 

10 ‘‘(A) to drought’’; 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘Secretary).’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘Secretary); or’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(B) to a quarantine imposed under Fed16 eral law, pursuant to the terms of which the 

17 commodity is destroyed or otherwise unable to 

18 be marketed or otherwise utilized for its in19 tended purpose (as determined by the Sec20 retary).’’. 

21 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph 

22 (B) of section 508(a)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance 

23 Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(1)), as added by subsection (a)(3), 

24 shall apply beginning with the 2015 reinsurance year. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Dennis G. McLaughlin, III, Chief Executive Officer of Earth Biofuels, Inc., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Earth Biofuels, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light ofthe circumstances under which 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 informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.Date: August 20, 2007                                                   /s/ Dennis G. McLaughlin, III   Dennis G. McLaughlin, III   Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

y0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142285 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142285 

 COA: 300324 

Hillsdale CC: 07-311333-FH 

LONNIE JOE MCLAVEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 3, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3002

___________

In re: John R. Burwell, *

*

Debtor, *

*

----------------------------- *

*

Randall L. Seaver, Trustee, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

* for the Eighth Circuit.

Burwell Family Limited Partnership; *

RHFP, LLC, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellants, *

*

John R. Burwell; Albert Kelly, Jr., *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: October 9, 2009

Filed: October 23, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Nancy C. Dreher, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Burwell Family Limited Partnership and RHFP, LLC, appeal from the decision

of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s1

 judgment

in favor of Randall Seaver, the Trustee of defendant John Burwell’s bankruptcy estate.

Reviewing the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions

of law de novo, see In re Vote, 276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2002), we agree with the

BAP’s analysis. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the

Trustee’s motion to dismiss.

______________________________
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018439EN.01003201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/32 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9225 — MML Capital Partners/Macquarie Group/Peggy Holdco)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 439/17)

1.

On 29 November 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018439EN.01003201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Macquarie European Investment Holdings Limited, belonging to Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquarie’, Australia), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | MML Capital Partners Fund VI GP Ltd, belonging to MML UK Partners LLP (‘MML’, United Kingdom). |

Macquarie and MML acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Peggy Holdco Limited, Macquarie’s subsidiary owning ParkingEye Limited (United Kingdom), a carpark management company.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   Macquarie: a global provider of banking, financing, advisor, investment and funds management services,

—   for MML: a private equity firm.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018439EN.01003201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9225 — MML Capital Partners/Macquarie Group/Peggy Holdco

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018439EN.01003201-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018439EN.01003201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Ronald R. MYLES, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES;

No. 18-9017

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER





I, Ty A. Lombardi, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Amedica Corporation;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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;


4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:


(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


(b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;


(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


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


5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: December 17, 2015  By:   /s/ Ty A. Lombardi


Ty A. Lombardi


Principal Accounting Officer
Timothy Wayne KEMP, Petitioner, v. Dexter PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction.

No. 19-7476.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

 

10/F, CPIC Plaza, No. 28 Fengsheng Lane, Xicheng District, Beijing 100032, China

Tel: 86 10 5776 3888  Fax: 86 10 5776 3777

 

March 29, 2019

 

**Bilibili Inc.**

Building 3, Guozheng Center

No. 499 Zhengli Road,

Yangpu District, Shanghai, China

as the “**Company**”

 

Dear Sirs,

 

We consent to the references to our firm under the heading “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure” and “Item 4.C—Information on the Company—Organizational Structure” in Bilibili Inc.’s Annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “**Annual Report**”), which is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “**SEC**”) on March 29, 2019. We also consent to the filing with the SEC of this consent letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report.

 

In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in each case, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

 
| Yours faithfully,      |   |
|------------------------|--------|
|                   |   |
| /s/ Tian Yuan Law Firm |   |
| **Tian Yuan Law Firm** |   |

 

----
James Bradley ANDERSON, Petitioner v. WASHINGTON

No. 18-1369

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 denied.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00907-CV

Maria Elsa VARGAS,

Appellant

v.

Mario NAKAZONO,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CVQ000472 D2

Honorable Raul Vasquez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 4, 2009

AFFIRMED

This is a restricted appeal from an order dismissing the underlying cause for lack of

prosecution. Maria Elsa Vargas asserts the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing her case

because the trial “court did not provide adequate notice that a dismissal was intended, such that

Vargas’[s] right to due process was denied.” Vargas contends that she never received written notice

of the dismissal hearing.
04-08-00907-CV

-2-

Initially, we note that the trial court’s order states that the attorney of record was “duly

notified.” We presume the recital in the order is correct absent controverting proof in the record.

See CVN Group, Inc. v. Delgado, No. 03-07-00291-CV, 2009 WL 2837691, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Austin Aug. 31, 2009, no pet. h.); In re B.D., 16 S.W.3d 77, 80 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); MJR Fin., Inc. v. Marshall, 840 S.W.2d 5, 9 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992,

orig. proceeding). 

“When a party claims in a restricted appeal that required notice was not given or a required

hearing was never held, the error must appear on the face of the record.” Ginn v. Forrester, 282

S.W.3d 430, 432 (Tex. 2009). “When extrinsic evidence is necessary to challenge a judgment, the

appropriate remedy is by motion for new trial or by bill of review filed in the trial court so that the

trial court has the opportunity to consider and weigh factual evidence.” Id.

“The rules governing dismissals for want of prosecution direct the district clerk to mail notice

containing the date and place of hearing at which the court intends to dismiss the case, TEX.R.CIV.

P. 165a(1), and a similar notice of the signing of the dismissal order, see TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(3).”

Id. at 433. “But the rules do not impose upon the clerk an affirmative duty to record the mailing of

the required notices; accordingly, the absence of proof in the record that notice was provided does

not establish error on the face of the record.” Id. 

In the present case, the record contains an order reciting that notice was given, and the record

is otherwise silent with regard to notice. Accordingly, because Vargas failed to establish error on

the face of the record, the trial court’s order is affirmed. 

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
# C_2018137EN.01000102.xml

| 19.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8826 — Elia System Operator/Eurogrid International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 137/02)

On 13 April 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8826. 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 32018M8826. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24

- 0192 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. BRANDON VAN GIESON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Julie Pesanti DeLong is granted an extension of time to and including August 14 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 27 2024

06/27/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0192
Cedis R. MARTIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6864

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.