alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Nuveen Exchange-Traded Funds

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of each of the Nuveen Exchange-Traded Funds listed in Exhibit
A attached hereto (the "Funds") for the year ended September
30, 2000, we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, 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,
and not to provide assurance on 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 internal control.
Generally, internal 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 internal
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition.


Because of inherent limitations in any internal control,
misstatements due to errors or fraud may occur and not be
detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods are subject to the risk that internal control may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures 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 specific internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors 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, including control activities for safeguarding securities,
and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses as
defined above as of September 30, 2000.


This report is intended solely for the information and use of the
Board of Directors and management of the Nuveen Exchange-
Traded Funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 17, 2000

Exhibit A


Funds with September Fiscal Year End

Nuveen New York Municipal Value Fund, Inc.
Nuveen New York Performance Plus Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen New York Investment Quality Municipal Fund,
Inc.
Nuveen New York Select Quality Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen New York Quality Income Municipal Fund, Inc.
Nuveen Insured New York Premium Income Municipal
Fund, Inc.
Nuveen New York Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER LYMAN HUGHES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-90-92-G)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lyman Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Walter C. Horton, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lyman Hughes appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for modification of his sentence. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United

States v. Hughes, No. CR-90-92-G (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2002). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Meeting of the

Special Exposure Cohort Issues Work Group

July 8, 2011

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701

10:00 a.m. Eastern Time

Welcome and roll-call 

Work Group Discussion

1. General Electric SEC Update – Lavon Rutherford 

2. Work Group Discussion and Action 

3. Ames SEC 00185 – Lavon Rutherford 

4. Work Group Discussion and Action 

Adjourn
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs April 12, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALEXANDER K. CARNEY

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 14-620 Donald H. Allen, Judge

No. W2015-01265-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 29, 2016

THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the appeal should be 

dismissed. However, when the issue is addressed on its merits, the convictions should be 

affirmed. The trial court found that Defendant was not wearing his seatbelt, which was a 

violation of the law, and that fact gave the trooper legal grounds to stop Defendant. By 

the limited issue in the certified question of law, Defendant (who presumably drafted the 

certified question) challenged only the stop and seizure of his vehicle on the ground that 

he was driving without wearing his seatbelt. The State could have insisted that the 

certified question include the issue relied upon by the majority in order to justify the 

seizure of the drug evidence, but did not. Thus, neither the State nor this court can go 

beyond the precise issue presented. The appellate court is “limited to consideration of the 

question preserved.” State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891, 900 (Tenn. 2008).

When crafting a certified question, both the defendant and the state 

would be prudent to review the Rule, craft the certified question to insure 

that it meets each of the requirements delineated in subsection 

(b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Rule, and analyze whether the issue as stated in 

the judgment order is broad enough to meet the intent of both parties. 

Although the burden is on the defendant/appellant to see that these 

prerequisites are in the final order [citation omitted], the state/appellee 

would be prudent to review the certified question as well because, as it 

did in this case, a certified question too narrow in scope may work to the 

state’s detriment. 

Id. at fn 8.
2

Accordingly, I would address the issue on its merits, find that Defendant is not 

entitled to relief, and affirm the judgments.

___________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1





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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of HQ Global Education Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Guangwen He, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





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




Date:  April 14, 2011

/s/ Guangwen HeGuangwen HeChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jackson Y. Dott, certify that:


1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Monarch Services,
    Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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)) for the registrant and have:

    a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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
        quarterly report is being prepared;

    b)  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

    c)  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, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of 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.

    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.


/s/    JACKSON Y. DOTT

Jackson Y. Dott
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  March 16, 2004
AGENDA 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Meeting of the

Mound Work Group

September 29, 2016 

Holiday Inn Cincinnati Airport 

1717 Airport Exchange Blvd., Erlanger, KY 41018 

Phone number 859-371-2233 

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701

9:00 a.m. Eastern Time

Welcome and roll-call 

DISCUSSION

• Matrix issue #5 PU-240, 241

• Matrix issue #6 Tritides

• Matrix issue #9 High fired PU 238

• Matrix issue #11, 12, & 13

* Uncertainty & low recovery of Polonium

* Other Radionuclide Data

* Secondary/ Other Radionuclide Data

* Tritium Logbooks

* Tritium Bioassay Data Adequacy

* Plutonium Data Comparison

* Polonium Data Comparison

* Fecal Bioassay Data

* Tritium (HTO) Data Comparison

* Thorium Bioassay Data

• Verification and validation of Mound dosimetry databases

3:00 p.m. Adjourn
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6408

DANITA CORBIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BARBARA J. WHEELER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-01296-GBL)

Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 8, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danita Corbin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Danita Corbin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Corbin has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

Calendar No. 603 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5737 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 

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

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 108 West D Street in Alpha, Illinois, as the 

‘‘Captain Joshua E. Steele Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN JOSHUA E. STEELE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 108 West D Street in Alpha, Illi6 nois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain Josh7 ua E. Steele Post Office’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5737 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain Joshua E. 

5 Steele Post Office’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 603 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5737 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Alpha, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Joshua E. Steele al Service located at 108 West D Street in 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Table of Contents


Exhibit 8.1  We conduct our cable television and related activities through a group of companies that we have acquired and developed over the past decade. Set forth in the table below is a list of our direct and indirect subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2009: Name of Subsidiary
     Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
     Direct Interest
     Total Interest(percent)
     (percent)Consolidated entitiesNet Belo Horizonte Ltda.
     Brazil
     -
     100.00Net Brasília Ltda.
     Brazil
     -
     100.00Net Rio Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Recife Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net São Paulo Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Campinas Ltda.
     Brazil
     -
     100.00Reyc Comércio e Participações Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Bauru Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Goiânia Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Ribeirão Preto Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Sorocaba Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Horizonte Sul Comunicações Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Net Paraná Comunicações Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00614 TVH Vale Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00Jacareí Cabo S.A.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00ESC 90 Telecomunicações Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00614 Serviços de Internet Maceió Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00614 Seviços de Internet João Pessoa Ltda.
     Brazil
     100.00
     100.00


---
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


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





I, Chene Gardner, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Alto Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that:





1.  I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;





2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and





3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.





Date:  October 18, 2010





/s/ Chene Gardner


Chene Gardner


Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6801

JERRY LYNN HIGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; MIKE GRIMES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-00-5-H)

Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lynn High, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment is marked as “filed”

on May 25, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on May 30, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lynn High appeals the district court’s order and judgment summarily dismissing his complaint challenging the forfeiture

of his boats and other property. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See High

v. Drug Enforcement Agency, No. CA-00-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 30, 2000).*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED UNDER ITEM AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,265
<SECURITIES>                                    13,902
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                       713
<INVENTORY>                                      8,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,976
<PP&E>                                          19,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           183
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,103
<SALES>                                         72,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,733
<CGS>                                           31,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,085)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,436)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,088)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,088)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
#### State of West Virginia *v.*Richard Postelwait, John Postelwait, And Jerald (Jug) Gum

(No. 13741)

Decided December 20, 1977.

*William C. Garrett, Garrett, Whittier & Garrett,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Chauncey H. Browning,*Attorney General, *Richard E. Hardison,*Deputy Attorney General, *James B. Hoover,*Assistant Attorney General, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam:

On May 26, 1975, defendants were convicted in the Circuit Court of Webster County of unlawfully conspiring to inflict injury upon Lemon Cogar, in violation of *W.Va. Code,*61-6-7, the Red Men’s Act.

On December 16, 1975, this Court, in the case of *Pinkerton v. Farr,*W. Va., 220 S.E.2d 682 (1975), declared the Red Men’s Act unconstitutional.

The principal question raised on this appeal is whether *Pinkerton v. Farr*should be applied retroactively.

*55In *Adkins v. Leverette,*W. Va., S.E.2d (1977), this Court, in holding’ the decision in *Conners v. Griffith,*W. Va., 238 S.E.2d 529 (1977), retroactive, recognized the retroactivity principle set forth in *Hankerson v. North Carolina,*U.S., 53 L. Ed. 2d 306, 97 S. Ct. 2339 (1977), that principle being that where the purpose of a new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function, neither good faith reliance on the old law nor severe impact on administrative justice will preclude retroactive application.

We declared the Red Men’s Act unconstitutional in *Pinkerton v. Farr*because it destroyed the presumption of innocence of the accused, because it infringed upon the accused’s right against self-incrimination, and because it failed to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as the basis for conviction. The presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are fundamental to the integrity of the trial’s fact-finding function. Since our reasons for declaring the Red Men’s Act unconstitutional go to the Act’s impact on the criminal trial’s fact-finding function, we hold that *Pinkerton v. Farr*is deemed fully retroactive.

*Judgment reversed; verdict set aside; remanded with directions to enter judgment of acquittal*