alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. John Bert HARDEE, Jr.

No. 45P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 2004.

John Bert Hardee, Jr., Pro Se.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth W. Honeycutt, District Attorney, for State.

***195*****ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th day of January 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of March 2004."
exv10w32



 





Exhibit 10.32



Summary of Employee Incentive Programs



Management Level Employees



The Company provided a program for incentive compensation for management
employees. The program provided for payments to be made as a percentage of
base compensation, based on performance by the Company relative to criteria
established and weighted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors. Those criteria were based on measurements of the Company’s
performance deemed to be relevant to manager level employees on a broad scale,
and to a level of performance deemed to be attainable, indicative of corporate
accomplishment, and likely to lead to corporate success. These included
operational criteria and sometimes included corporate financial performance.
Operational criteria (such as completion factor, on-time performance, etc.)
were designed to target performance levels deemed to be desirable, and will
generally be similar to criteria used to establish bonus plans for non-exempt
(hourly) employees. Two or more levels of participation were used at times to
reflect different levels of participation for various levels of management.
Frequency of payment were determined by the Compensation Committee.



The Company does not intend to resume its prior incentive compensation program
but does intend to provide incentive-based compensation for non-management
employees in the future, and is presently evaluating the terms under which it
will do so.



Non-Management Employees



The Company provided a program for incentive compensation for non-management
employees. This program was suspended in April 2003. The program provided for
payments to be made on a lump sum basis for achievement by the Company of
specific performance targets relative to criteria established and weighted by
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Those criteria were
based on measurements of the Company’s performance deemed to be relevant to
employees generally, and to a level of performance that was deemed to be
attainable, indicative of corporate accomplishment, and likely to lead to
corporate success, at times including operational criteria and/or corporate
financial performance. Operational criteria (such as completion factor,
on-time performance, etc.) were designed to target performance levels deemed to
be desirable, and were generally similar to criteria used for incentive
compensation for management employees. Participation was
based on minimum hours and length of tenure, as established by the Compensation
Committee.



The Company does not intend to resume its prior incentive compensation program
for non-management employees but does intend to provide incentive-based
compensation for non-management employees in the future. The Company is
presently evaluating such aspects as performance objectives, levels of
participation, frequency of payment, and eligibility.
Roberto MEDINA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner v. ARIZONA

No. 19-5950

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
Terry G. WATSON, Petitioner v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

No. 19-6508

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Trustees of the
Smith Barney Investment Trust:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Smith
Barney S&P 500 Index Fund (the "Fund") of the Smith Barney Investment Trust
(the "Trust") for the year ended December 31, 2000, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR,
not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments
by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with 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, errors or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of 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 December 31, 2000.

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.


February 9, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1228 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1228

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 123 South 9<SUP>th</SUP> Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, as the 
           ``Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JUSTIN D. ROSS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 123 South 9<SUP>th</SUP> Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Justin D. Ross Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1228

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 123 South 9<SUP>th</SUP> Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, as the 
           ``Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office Building''.
```
Leonard L. LITTLE, Jr., Petitioner v. FLORIDA

No. 19-6737

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
STATE v. DAVIS.

No. COA03-647.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 20, 2004.

Certification Date August 9, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Martin Stanley IVIE, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 19-6732

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 denied.
SMITH BARNEY INVESTMENT FUNDS INC.
On behalf of
SMITH BARNEY CONTRARIAN FUND

Supplement dated January 14, 2000 to
Prospectus dated April 30, 1999

In connection with the announcement on January 7, 2000 that
 the Board of Directors of Smith
Barney Investment Funds
Inc, ( the "Board") on behalf of Smith Barney
Contrarian Fund (the "Contrarian Fund") had approved a
proposed reorganization pursuant to which Smith Barney
Fundamental Value Fund Inc.("Fundamental Value Fund")
would acquire the assets of and assume the stated
liabilities of the Contrarian Fund in exchange for
shares of Fundamental Value Fund, please be advised that
 it is anticipated that as of March 1, 2000
Contrarian Fund will no longer be accepting investments.
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Directors of Managed Municipals Portfolio II Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated October 15, 1996 incorporated 
herein by reference and to the references to our Firm under the headings 
"Financial Highlights" and "Experts" in the Prospectus and "Independent 
Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information.



	KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


New York, New York
December 5, 1996
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CLAUDIO OTERO, JR., a/k/a Bill, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District 

Judge. (6:99-cr-70054-nkm-6) 

Submitted: April 28, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Claudio Otero, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Claudio Otero, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the 

defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after 

the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United 

States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding 

that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal 

period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an 

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 

(4th Cir. 1985). 

 The district court entered its order denying the 

motion for reduction of sentence on September 15, 2008, and the 

ten-day appeal period expired on September 29, 2008. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 26 (providing that “intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, 

and legal holidays” are excluded when time period is less than 

eleven days). The thirty-day excusable neglect period expired 

on October 29, 2008. 

 When a criminal defendant’s notice of appeal is filed 

more than ten days following judgment but within the thirty-day 

excusable neglect period, we generally remand so the district 

court can assess whether there has been good cause or excusable 

2 
3 

neglect to excuse the late filing. Because Otero is 

incarcerated, the notice of appeal is considered filed as of the 

date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing 

to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Otero’s notice of appeal was dated 

October 29, 2008, the last day of the excusable neglect period. 

However, it was post-marked October 30, 2008, and was datestamped received in the district court on November 4, 2008. 

 Because it is unclear when Otero gave his notice of 

appeal to prison officials for mailing, we remand the case to 

the district court for the court to determine whether Otero’s 

notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period 

and, if so, whether Otero has shown excusable neglect or good 

cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The 

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for 

further consideration. 

REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000890340
<NAME> THE EMERGING MARKETS INCOME FUND INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       64,845,878
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      60,652,442
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,077,829
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                             8,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,738,868
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                     20,000,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      362,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                         20,362,276
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                  3,977
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    55,167,012
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        3,976,520
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        3,768,428
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                       24,746
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                    (6,576,866)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                   (4,242,277)
<NET-ASSETS>                                44,376,592
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                            9,427,448
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                               2,047,850
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                      7,379,598
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                   (5,902,137)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                   20,445,925
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                       21,923,386
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                    9,246,330
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                           96,730
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            208,092
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                      14,853,999
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                      2,036,529
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                    (819,780)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          486,797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,296,575
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                              2,047,850
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        40,702,353
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            07.83
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                  01.88
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                          03.83
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                        02.41
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                             00.02
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              11.16
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                  05.03


</TABLE>
Brian David BRUMBACH, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6968

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1471 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1471

    To designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National 
    Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley National Heritage 
                              Corridor''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2013

 Mr. Courtney (for himself, Mr. Neal, and Mr. McGovern) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To designate the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National 
    Heritage Corridor as ``The Last Green Valley National Heritage 
                              Corridor''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE LAST GREEN VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE 
              CORRIDOR.

    (a) In General.--The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National 
Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 103-449) 
is amended--
            (1) in section 103--
                    (A) in the heading, by striking ``the quinebaug and 
                shetucket rivers valley national heritage corridor'' 
                and inserting ``the last green valley national heritage 
                corridor''; and
                    (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Quinebaug 
                and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage 
                Corridor'' and inserting ``The Last Green Valley 
                National Heritage Corridor''; and
            (2) in section 108(2), by striking ``the Quinebaug and 
        Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor'' and 
        inserting ``The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor 
        established''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Quinebaug and 
Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor shall be deemed to 
be a reference to the ``The Last Green Valley National Heritage 
Corridor''.
                                 <all>
```
Howronda OVERSTREET, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7854.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
MANAGED HIGH INCOME PORTFOLIO INC.
(the "Portfolio")

Supplement dated September 5, 1997
to the Prospectus dated June 27, 1997


	The following information supplements, and to the extent inconsistent 
therewith, supersedes, the information set forth in the prospectus under 
Investment Objectives and Policies --Non-Publicly Traded and Illiquid 
Securities."
Illiquid Securities.  The Portfolio may invest up to 15% of its net 
assets in illiquid securities, including repurchase agreements maturing 
in more than seven days, securities that are not readily marketable and 
restricted securities not eligible for resale pursuant to Rule 144A 
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the 1933 Act").  An 
illiquid security is any security that cannot be disposed of within 
seven days in the normal course of business at approximately the amount 
at which it is valued by the Portfolio.  The price the Portfolio pays 
for illiquid securities or receives upon resale may be lower than the 
price paid or received for similar securities with a more liquid market.  
Accordingly, the valuation of these securities will reflect any 
limitations on their liquidity.

	Rule 144A Securities.  The Portfolio may purchase Rule 144A Securities, 
which are unregistered securities restricted to purchase by qualified 
institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the 1933 Act.  Because 
Rule 144A Securities are freely transferable among qualified 
institutional buyers, a liquid market may exist among such buyers.  The 
Board of Directors has adopted guidelines and delegated to management 
the daily function of determining and monitoring liquidity of Rule 144A 
securities.  However, the Board of Directors maintains sufficient 
oversight and is ultimately responsible for the liquidity 
determinations.  Investments in restricted securities such as Rule 144A 
securities could have the effect of increasing the level of illiquidity 
in the Portfolio to the extent that there is temporarily no market for 
these securities among qualified institutional buyers. 

FD01322



u:\legal\funds\#mhy\misc\sticker
10f-3 REPORT

CONSULTING GROUP CAPITAL MARKETS FUND
  MULTI-SECTOR FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS

Feb 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001

                  Trade                                     % of
Issuer            Date    Selling Dealer   Amount    Price  Issue (1)
France Telecom    3/5/01  CS First Boston  $20,000   99.244 0.02%  A

       (1)  Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
            25% of the principal amount of the offering.

    A - Includes purchases of $200,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1451 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 387
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1451

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                              May 21, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 14 Main Street in Brockport, New York, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
                Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT NICHOLAS J. REID POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Main Street in Brockport, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 387

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1451

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 14 Main Street in Brockport, New York, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
                Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 21, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```