alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
the Smith Barney Municipal Money Market Fund, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated May 14, 1997, with respect 
to the Smith Barney Municipal Money Market Fund, 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 Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
July 24, 1997
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony C. LAMBERT.

No. 87A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2004.

Anthony C. Lambert, Pro Se.

Brenda Eaddy, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 6th day of February 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is *694"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of April 2004."
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Telewest Global, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

This quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 12, 2005

/s/ Barry R. Elson
-------------------------
Barry R. Elson
Acting Chief Executive Officer
The Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Investment Series:

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of the Smith
Barney Investment Series (the "Funds") consisting of Select Small Cap
Portfolio, Select Mid Cap Portfolio, Select Growth Portfolio, Select Growth
and Income Portfolio, Select Government Portfolio, Smith Barney International
Aggressive Growth Fund, Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund, and Smith Barney
Growth and Income Fund for the year ended October 31, 2000, we considered its
internal control, including control procedures 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 Funds 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 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 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 the internal control and its operation, including
controls for safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of October 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 the
specified parties.


New York, New York
December 7, 2000
Amendment to Employment Agreement btwn Robert H. Muttera and Placer Sierra Bank



 EXHIBIT 10.17 
  
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of October 28, 2003 by
and between PLACER SIERRA BANK, a California corporation (“Bank”) and ROBERT H. MUTTERA (“Employee”) (collectively sometimes referred to as the “Parties”): 
  
 WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) effective January 1, 2003; and

  
 WHEREAS, the Parties intend by this Amendment to amend
the Agreement as set forth hereinbelow: 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT
IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 
  
 1. Section 5(f) of the
Agreement is amended to read as follows: 
  
 (iv)
Automobile Allowance. During the Employment Term, Employee shall be entitled to an automobile allowance in the amount of $900 per month (less payroll taxes and withholding required by federal, state or local law). In addition, as of the
effective date of this Amendment, Company shall pay the amounts charged by Employee for fuel for business related travel on a credit card provided by Company to Employee. Except for this automobile allowance and payment of fuel charges, Company
shall not be obligated to pay any other expenditure with respect to the ownership or operation of Employee’s automobile, and Employee will be responsible for all out-of-pocket automobile expenses, including, but not limited to, registration,
insurance, repairs, and maintenance. Employee shall procure and maintain an automobile liability insurance policy on the automobile, with coverage including Employee for at least $100,000 for bodily injury or death to any one person, $300,000 for
bodily injury or death in any one accident, and $50,000 for property damage in any one accident. Company shall be named as an additional insured and Employee shall provide Company with copies of policies evidencing insurance and Company’s
inclusion as an additional insured. 
  
 2. All other terms of the
Agreement remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment is entered into as of the date and year above written. 
  

							
	“BANK”	 	 	 	“EMPLOYEE”
	PLACER SIERRA BANK	 	 	 	 
				
	 By
	 	 /s/    RENEE
ARTERY        

	 	 	 	 /s/    ROBERT H.
MUTTERA        


	 	 	RENEE ARTERY	 	 	 	ROBERT H. MUTTERA

  


					
	 	 	 	 	Execution Copy
STATE v. Terrence Rodricus ELLIOTT.

No. 184A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2004.

William N. Farrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of June 2004 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 17th day of August 2004 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of June 2004."
# C_2023012EN.01001501.xml

| 13.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/15

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10989 – BLACKSTONE / EMERSON (HVAC AND REFRIGERATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS))

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 12/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Blackstone Inc. (United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

Blackstone Inc. (United States),

| — | Emerald JV Holdings L.P. (Emerson Electric Co.’s Climate Technologies Business) (United States), controlled by Emerson Electric Co. (United States). |
| --- | --- |

—

Emerald JV Holdings L.P. (Emerson Electric Co.’s Climate Technologies Business) (United States), controlled by Emerson Electric Co. (United States).

Blackstone Inc. will indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Emerald JV Holdings L.P. (Emerson Electric Co.’s Climate Technologies Business).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Blackstone Inc. is a global asset manager that is headquartered in the United States and has offices in Europe and Asia, |
| --- | --- |

—

Blackstone Inc. is a global asset manager that is headquartered in the United States and has offices in Europe and Asia,

| — | Emerald JV Holdings L.P. (United States) holds the standalone commercial-and-residential climate technologies business of Emerson Electric Co. and comprises a portfolio of products and services in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning and refrigeration technology sectors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Emerald JV Holdings L.P. (United States) holds the standalone commercial-and-residential climate technologies business of Emerson Electric Co. and comprises a portfolio of products and services in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning and refrigeration technology sectors.

3.

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

4.

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

M.10989 – BLACKSTONE / EMERSON (HVAC AND REFRIGERATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS)

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 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
LILLIE M. LYONS, Plaintiff, v. YONG WOO KIM, SCOTT and ROBERT CLEANERS, and JOO HWAN KIM, Defendants.

No. COA03-1579

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 20, 2004

This case not for publication

Durham County No. 98 CVS 1729.

*Lillie Lyons, pro se.*

*No appellee brief filed.*

STEELMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Lillie M. Lyons, filed this action against defendants alleging that she was fired from her employment because of her race. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff and defendants presented evidence at a non-jury trial before Judge Robert H. Hobgood on 30 June 2003. Judge Hobgood made findings of fact and concluded as a matter of law that defendants' decision to fire plaintiff was based upon a legitimate business concern and was not discriminatory or in violation of public policy. Judge Hobgood dismissed plaintiff's action. Plaintiff appeals Judge Hobgood's order. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. We, therefore, dismiss plaintiff's appeal.

In the present case, plaintiff has failed to list assignments of error in the record on appeal as required by Rules 9(a)(1)(k) and 10(a) and (c)(1). N.C. R. App. P. 9(a)(1)(k), 10(a), 10(c)(1). Further, plaintiff's brief fails to refer to any assignments of error as required by Rule 28(b)(6). N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). Plaintiff's brief also fails to comply with our appellate rules by: (1) failing to contain any citations of authority; (2) failing to contain a statement of the questions presented for review; (3) failing to state the procedural history; (4) failing to state the grounds for appellate review; (5) failing to include a statement of the facts; and (6) failing to use the proper type style. *See* N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(2)-(6), (j)(1).

This Court has stated:

> The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory; failure to comply with these rules subjects an appeal to dismissal. Furthermore, these rules apply to everyone _ whether acting *pro se* or being represented by all of the five largest law firms in the State.

*Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes,*135 N.C. App. 124, 125, 519 S.E.2d 316, 317 (1999)(citations omitted). Plaintiff's violations of the appellate rules are so numerous and are so egregious that we are compelled to dismiss her appeal. In so doing we have taken into account the fact that plaintiff appears *pro se* in this matter. Additionally, we have reviewed this case on its merits and conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without merit.

DISMISSED.

Judges HUDSON and THORNBURG concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
Monty Dwayne SULLIVAN, Petitioner v. WYOMING

No. 19-6970

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 VIASPACE INC.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 March 31, 2006
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 11, 2006
    /s/ CARL KUKKONENCarl KukkonenChief Executive OfficerDate: May 11, 2006
    /s/ STEPHEN J. MUZIStephen J. MuziChief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127863 & (78) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127863 

 COA: 246345 

Kalkaska CC: 01-002162-FC 

IVAN LEE BECHTOL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 30, 2004 

judgment 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. The motion to 

remand for an evidentiary hearing is also considered, and it is DENIED, without 

prejudice to defendant’s right to seek post-appeal relief pursuant to MCR 6.500. 

p1026 

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. 

November 2, 2005 

Clerk
Radomysl TWARDOWSKI, Petitioner, v. BISMARCK POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 18-9160

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6303

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTT MATTHEW PIERCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00053-MFU-RSB-1)

Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Matthew Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan Kulpa, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Scott Matthew Pierce appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny Pierce’s motion for transcript and affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court in the “Additional Comments” section of the order. See United States v. 

Pierce, No. 5:14-cr-00053-MFU-RSB-1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2018). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-16-00023-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

WILLIE BURNS AND ZANATTA BURNS

On Appeal from the 335th District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27,875

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Burns, appellant, filed a notice of appeal in this matter on March 18, 2016.1 The 

clerk’s record in this matter, which was due to be filed on or before May 19, 2016, has not been 

filed, and there is no indication that Burns, who is not indigent, has either paid for or made 

satisfactory payment arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record. 

Unless otherwise excused, a nonindigent appellant must either pay or make arrangements 

for the payment of the fees related to preparation of the appellate record to ensure that the record 

is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3); see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c), 37.3(b), (c).

By letter dated June 16, 2016, and pursuant to Rules 37.3(b) and 42.3(b) and (c) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, our clerk’s office provided Burns with notice of and an 

opportunity to cure this defect. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). The clerk’s letter further 

warned Burns that if he did not remedy the identified defect within ten days of the date of the letter, 

his appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Id. We have received no 

communication from Burns responsive to the clerk’s June 16 correspondence, and we have not 

received the clerk’s record.

 

1Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware 

of any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
3

Pursuant to Rules 37.3(b) and 42.3(b) and (c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: July 12, 2016

Date Decided: July 13, 2016
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Dana Persson, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Form 10-Q of Golden Oval Eggs, LLC;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness 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)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date July 17, 2006 | /s/ Dana Persson        |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Darius T. MURPHY, Petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY

No. 18-9110

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Preston BRADBURY.

No. 176P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Kenneth Preston Bradbury, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Speas, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th day of April 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 12th day of August 2004."
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Effective Profitable Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending Apri1 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Don Bratcher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Effective Profitable Software, Inc.

 
| Dated: December 14, 2005 |
|--------------------------|

 

**EFFECTIVE PROFITABLE SOFTWARE, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Don Bratcher* |
|-----|--------------------|

Chief Financial Officer