alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000979480
<NAME> SMITH BARNEY SECTOR SERIES
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>007
   <NAME>SMITH BARNEY GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY FUND

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              2 Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 OCT-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      OCT-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>              6,361,730
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>             5,119,436
<RECEIVABLES>                        146,512
<ASSETS-OTHER>                             0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                     212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     5,266,160
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>               2,284
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                    2,284
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                            0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           6,409,791
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                271,774
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                  0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                (6,413)
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>              (67,872)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                   0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>          (1,242,360)
<NET-ASSETS>                       5,093,146
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                     10,016
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      1,220
<OTHER-INCOME>                             0
<EXPENSES-NET>                        17,649
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>               (6,413)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>             (67,872)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>         (1,242,360)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>             (1,316,645)
<EQUALIZATION>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                  0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                   0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                      0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>            8,937,999
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>       (2,528,208)
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                        0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             5,093,146
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                  8,085
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                       92,510
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               2,207,776
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  11.40
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (0.02)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0.00
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0.00
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     8.77
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                         2.25
[AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING]                     0
[AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE]                       0



</TABLE>
Lucas Allen NEWNAM, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-556

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office denied.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Advanced System Management

Solutions JV, LLC Under Contract No. N00421-04-D-0058 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ) ) ) ASBCA No. 60645 ) ) ) Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. Skye Mathieson, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Gregory T. Allen, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Chantilly, VA ORDEROF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 14 September 2017

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60645, Appeal ofAdvanced System Management Solutions JV, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Moore,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Patrick J. Moore                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick J. Moore                      |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| February 28, 2008                |   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Corporationand will be retained by Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[ARTICLE] 6
[CIK] 0000856343
[NAME] SMITH BARNEY SMALL CAP BLEND FUND, INC. - CLASS A
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1999
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                      321,956,981
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                     340,189,430
[RECEIVABLES]                                6,689,672
[ASSETS-OTHER]                              35,539,295
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                             382,418,397
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                     2,332,458
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                   36,392,923
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                         38,725,381
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                   309,621,865
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                        2,065,540
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                        1,798,487
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                      382,804
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                     14,518,898
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                    19,169,449
[NET-ASSETS]                               343,693,016
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                            3,274,890
[INTEREST-INCOME]                              839,790
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                               3,034,690
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                      1,079,990
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                    65,293,020
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                  (4,324,590)
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                       62,048,420
[EQUALIZATION]                                       0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                            0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                     3,129,062
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                        715,813
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                    683,740
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                            234,980
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                      62,780,991
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                        (2,083)
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                 (13,047,321)
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                        2,240,238
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                              3,034,690
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                        24,318,819
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            13.09
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                 (0.09)
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                           2.60
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                         1.68
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                              13.92
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                   2.04
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORTOFREDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SS.SS. 1350(a) AND (b))**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), each of theundersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2007 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Date:  July 26, 2007
| /s/ STEVEN J. JANUSEK                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Steven J. Janusek, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not a part of the Form 10-Qto which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by theabove signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Reddy IceHoldings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

----
Jerud BUTLER, Petitioner v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, et al.

No. 19-285

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2019413EN.01005401.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/54

---

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — TrekStor and Beats Electronics v EUIPO — Beats Electronics and TrekStor (iBeat)

(Joined Cases T-748/17 and T-770/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate - Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Avoidable costs - Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

(2019/C 413/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-748/17: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-770/17: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented, in Case T-748/17, initially by: E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis, A. Söder and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents, and, in Case T-770/17, initially by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, and subsequently by A. Söder, E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-748/17: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court in Case T-770/17: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 (Joined Cases R 2175/2016-4 and R 2213/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Beats Electronics and TrekStor.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions.

| 2. | TrekStor Ltd and Beats Electronics LLC shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

TrekStor Ltd and Beats Electronics LLC shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | TrekStor and Beats Electronics shall each pay to the Court the sum of EUR 2 500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

TrekStor and Beats Electronics shall each pay to the Court the sum of EUR 2 500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

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

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Smith Barney Special Equities Fund of Smith Barney Investment
Funds Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended December 31, 1997, 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
irregularities 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 errors or irregularities 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.




February 10, 1998
Eduardo ADAME-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. William P. BARR, Attorney General

No. 19-492

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings in Existing Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-980-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.                

*Description:*                     § 4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Exp Agmts from Tariff eff 6-15-2022 to be effective 6/15/2022.                

*Filed Date:*                     6/15/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220615-5037.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.                

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-981-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.                

*Description:*                     § 4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Expired Agmts from Tariff eff 6-15-22 to be effective 6/15/2022.                

*Filed Date:*                     6/15/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220615-5038.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.                

Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

                    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (                    *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.                

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf*. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: June 15, 2022.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-13333 Filed 6-21-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN RE Tiran R. CASTEEL, Petitioner

No. 19-6258

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 The “safety valve” allows departure below minimum sentencing.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 18 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY RAY MONTOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-2329

(D.C. No. CR-97-80-LH)

(District of New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, MCWILLIAMS, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

This case presents a single issue of whether appellant’s possession of a firearm

which he kept in the same closet as the controlled substance he distributed provides

sufficient evidence to deny him the benefit of the sentencing “safety valve,”1 18 U.S.C.
- 2 -

§ 3553(f)(1)-(5), in the absence of any evidence he ever possessed, used, or carried any

dangerous weapon in connection with the offense. Notwithstanding an inventive oral

argument, we believe this case is absolutely controlled by United States v. Hallum, 103

F.3d 87, 89 (10th Cir. 1996), a case this panel cannot overrule. United States v. Foster,

104 F.3d 1228, 1229 (10th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the

district court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
ESTATE OF Robert CUNNINGHAM, et al., Petitioners v. Mark MCGUIRE

No. 19-583

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LATANYA CRAMER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

S. DICKINSON, Officer; PATRICIA A.

JOHNSON, Nurse Practitioner,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15865

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00375-AWIGSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Latanya Cramer appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants

violated her Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights when they subjected her to an

FILED

DEC 04 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
allegedly illegal digital cavity search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of the doctrine

of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We

affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Cramer’s action as barred by res

judicata because Cramer raised identical claims against these defendants in a prior

federal action that was adjudicated on the merits. See Cramer v. Dickinson et al.,

No. 1:08-cv-00723-CRB (PR); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure to

prosecute or comply with a court order “operates as an adjudication on the

merits”); see also Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (describing elements of res judicata). 

We do not consider Cramer’s requests to produce paperwork relating to the

December 19, 2005 incident because they were raised for the first time in her

Reply Brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The Clerk is directed to file the Reply Brief lodged on October 21, 2013. 

AFFIRMED. 

2 13-15865