alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


February 13, 2020


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 1991


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


BNY Atlantic Terminal


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 1991 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-234727 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 
	 	 	 
		By	/s/ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 		Senior Vice President
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.21


AGREEMENT


This Agreement (“Agreement”) dated September 27, 2019 by and between William Nicholson, an Oregon resident (“Employee”), and Portland General Electric Company, an Oregon corporation (the “Company”) with a business address of 121 SW Salmon St., Portland, Oregon 97204.


1.     Separation Benefits.  In exchange for the release described in paragraph 2 below, the Company agrees to provide Employee with the following in connection with his retirement from the Company effective December 31, 2019: 
(a)Modification of Performance Share Awards.  The two separate Officers’ and Key Employees’ Performance Stock Unit Agreements effective February 14, 2018 and February 13, 2019 (the “Performance Share Agreements”) pursuant to which Employee was granted restricted stock units with service-based and performance-based vesting conditions in accordance with and subject to the terms of the Portland General Electric Company Stock Incentive Plan (the “Stock Incentive Plan”) shall be and hereby are amended to provide that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of the Performance Share Agreements, Employee shall be deemed to have satisfied the applicable service-based vesting requirements thereunder.  


(b)Modification of Restricted Stock Unit Award.  Effective on the date of his retirement, Employee shall be fully vested in the restricted stock units with service-based vesting conditions granted to him in accordance with and subject to the terms of the Stock Incentive Plan and a Restricted Stock Unit Agreement effective February 13, 2019.
The benefits provided under this Agreement are in addition to, and do not affect, any other benefits to which Employee is entitled under the Company’s benefit plans, including without limitation Employee’s 2019 Annual Cash Incentive award and 2017-2019 performance-based long-term incentive award.
2.    Release.  Employee hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges the Company, its successors, or any entities which control, or are controlled by the Company, or any of their respective past, present, and future directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and insurers from any and all claims and liabilities of every nature and kind in any way related to or arising out of Employee's employment, or any other matter which arose before the date that Employee signs this Agreement, or which might be asserted under local, state, or federal authorities.  Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive or release any rights that may not be released for public policy reasons.
3.    Choice of Law.  The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon, without regard to conflict-of-law principles.
	
		
	EMPLOYEE




By:     /s/ William Nicholson
                William Nicholson






Date: 10/30/19
	COMPANY




By:      /s/ Anne Mersereau
                 Anne Mersereau 
                 Vice President, Human Resources, 
                 Diversity & Inclusion


Date: 10/30/19
#### The People of the State of New York v. Samuel Kahn.

Motion granted.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTOINE ODOM,

Petitioner, Civil No. 5:09-11197

HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

GARY CAPELLO,

Respondent,

___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPTS

On March 31, 2009, petitioner filed the instant application for a writ of habeas

corpus, in which he challenges his conviction for three counts of assaulting a prison

employee and being a fourth felony habitual offender. Petitioner has now filed a motion,

in which he asks this Court to order the prosecutor to prepare transcripts and copies of his

appeal briefs from his state court files, so that petitioner can either file a post-conviction

appeal in the state courts or file additional pleadings in this Court. For the reasons stated

below, the motion for preparation of transcripts is DENIED.

28 U.S.C. § 2250 states:

“If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made

permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis, the

clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without

cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on file in his

office as may be required by order of the judge before whom the application

is pending.”
2

The Court will deny petitioner’s motion for transcripts, because petitioner has not

specified why these appellate briefs or transcripts are needed for him to prepare either a

post-conviction appeal in the state courts or to prepare pleadings in his federal habeas

proceeding. A “blanket and noncommittal request” for documents by a habeas petitioner

is insufficient to enable a federal court to make a determination of necessity pursuant to §

2250. See Cassidy v. United States, 304 F. Supp. 864, 867 (E.D Mo. 1969); See also

Morton v. Warren, No. 2008 WL 4386840, * 5 (E.D. Mich. September 24, 2008); See

also United States v. Chambers, 788 F. Supp. 334, 338 (E.D. Mich. 1992)(federal

criminal defendant not entitled to production of trial transcripts on his “bald assertion”

that he needed them to prepare § 2255 post-conviction motion to vacate sentence). In

light of the conclusory nature of petitioner’s motion for the production of the transcripts

from his state court case, the motion for production of the transcripts is denied. Id.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion for preparation of transcripts [Dkt. # 6] is

DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: February 18, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

of record on this date, February 18, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager
#### QUEEN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. R. P. WINEMAN, Appellee.

No. 7455.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 10, 1938.

Fitzhugh, Murrah & Fitzhugh, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

R. Lee Bartels and Alfred Sohm, both of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

Before SIMONS and ALLEN, Circuit Judges, and WEST, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

It being the opinion of . the court that there was substantial evidence upon which to submit to the jury-an issue of fact as to whether or not the property insured by the policy upon which suit was brought was struck by lightning within the coverage of the policy, and it being further the opinion of the court that the excluded evidence was not an official record, nor that it was made admissible by the Act of June 20, 1936, c. 640, § 1, 49 Stat. 1561 (T. 28, U.S.C., § 695, 28 U.S.C.A. § 695), enacted since the trial, and it being further the opinion of the court that the defendant’s theory of applicable depreciation was substantially submitted to the decision of the jury, and there being no other prejudicial error in the case, the judgment below is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30809

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FLOYD DOUGLAS, also known as Doug,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CR-160-6

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Floyd Douglas, federal prisoner # 18919-034, appeals the district court’s

grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the

amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Douglas argues that the district

court abused its discretion in reducing his sentence to near the top of the

amended guidelines range, rather than imposing a reduction comparable to his

original sentence, which was near the bottom of the guidelines range. Douglas’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-30809 Document: 00511085858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
No. 08-30809

appeal waiver does not bar this appeal. See United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d

293, 297 (5th Cir. 2009).

We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Sentencing

Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). A sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)

is not a full sentencing proceeding; therefore, the reasonableness standard

derived from United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not apply.

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671-72 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert.

filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939); Doublin, 572 F.3d at 237.

Douglas specifically argues that the district court did not properly consider

the positive steps he has made towards rehabilitation while he has been

incarcerated. The district court was under no obligation to reduce Douglas’s

sentence at all, nor was it obligated to impose a particular sentence within the

recalculated guidelines range. Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. However, because the

district court did, in fact, grant Douglas’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and reduced his

sentence, we can assume that the court considered the appropriate factors. Id.

Moreover, the district court was not required to provide reasons for imposing the

new sentence. Id. at 674. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 08-30809 Document: 00511085858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                          |  |                              
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|1. DSP Group Ltd.                         |  | Israel                       
|                                          | 
|2. Nihon DSP K.K.                         |  | Japan                        
|                                          | 
|3. RF Integrated Systems, Inc.            |  | Delaware, U.S.               
|                                          | 
|4. DSPG Edinburgh Ltd.                    |  | Scotland                     
|                                          | 
|5. DSP Video Korea Ltd.                   |  | Korea                        
|                                          | 
|6. DSP R&D Ireland Ltd.                   |  | Ireland                      
|                                          | 
|7. DSP Group Switzerland AG               |  | Switzerland                  
|                                          | 
|8. DSPG Technologies GmbH                 |  | Germany                      
|                                          | 
|9. DSP Group France SAS                   |  | France                       
|                                          | 
|10. DSP Group HK Limited                  |  | Hong Kong                    
|                                          | 
|11. DSP Technology Indian Private Limited |  | India
#### David BLACKBURN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

No. 03-3228.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 15, 2003.

ORDER

The petitioner having faded to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for fadure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
#### F. R. HANRAHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 7648.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 6, 1938.

Herbert S. Duffy, of Columbus, Ohio, and Mooney, Hahn, Loeser & Keough, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same is, dismissed pursuant to motion of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
#### William WITHEM, Petitioner, v. Joe UNDERWOOD, Respondent.

No. 95-0697.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 31, 1996.

Rehearing Overruled June 28, 1996.

*957Kelly Atkins, William J. Clay, Dallas, for Petitioner.

Lawrence G. Smith, De Soto, for Respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this malicious prosecution case, Joe Underwood sought damages from Dillard’s Department Store and its employee, William Withem. Counsel for Dillard’s filed answers on behalf of both defendants, although With-em’s whereabouts were unknown. Later, the trial court granted Dillard’s motion for summary judgment but struck Withem’s pleadings and granted Underwood’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Withem did not appear at the trial on damages, and the trial court rendered judgment against him for $633,158.75. The attorney who had filed Withem’s answer next filed a petition for writ of error in the court of appeals within six months of the final judgment. A majority of that court dismissed the petition, finding that Withem participated at trial. *See*— S.W.2d -, -. We hold that Withem did not participate at trial and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court.

To appeal by writ of error, the appellant must (1) file the petition for writ of error within six months of the signing of the final judgment, (2) be a party to the lawsuit, (3) have not participated in the actual trial of the case, and (4) show error on the face of the record. *See*TexR.App. P. 45; *see also Stubbs v. Stubbs,*685 S.W.2d 643, 644 (Tex.1985). Here, a petition on Withem’s behalf was timely filed and he is a party to the lawsuit. The sole issue before us is whether Withem participated in the actual trial. We have previously held that participation means taking part in a

> hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the facts. The statute was intended to cut off the right of appeal by writ of error of those who participate in the hearing in open court in the trial that leads to final judgment.

*Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb,*137 Tex. 107,152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (1941). As we recently noted, the issue is whether “the appellant has participated in ‘the decision-making event’ that results in judgment adjudicating the appellant’s rights.” *See Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co.,*- S.W.2d -, - [1996 WL 263165] (Tex.1996) (citations omitted). Because Withem did not participate in the trial, the court of appeals should have considered whether his petition showed error on the face of the record.

Accordingly, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170 and without hearing oral argument, the Court grants the application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and remands this cause to that court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1809]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities; 
Notice of Quarterly Meeting

AGENCY: President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities 
(PCPID); Administration for Children and Families; Department of Health 
and Human Services.

ACTION: Notice of Quarterly Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: February 15, 2008, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST. The meeting 
will be conducted via conference call and will be open to the public 
using the dial-in information provided below.

ADDRESSES: The conference call may be accessed on the date and time 
indicated by dialing 888-677-5720, passcode: 1397797.
    Agenda: PCPID will meet to finalize the 2007 Report to the 
President and to hear a briefing on the final report of the Ticket to 
Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally D. Atwater, Executive Director, 
President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, The 
Aerospace Center, Second Floor, West, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 
Washington, DC 20447. Telephone: 202-619-0634, Fax: 202-205-9591. E-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d2e3c292a3c29382f1d3c3e3b7335352e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abd8cadfdccadfced9ebcac8cd85c3c3d885ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the 
President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a broad 
range of topics relating to programs, services and supports for persons 
with intellectual disabilities. PCPID, by Executive Order, is 
responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in 
programs, services and supports for persons with intellectual 
disabilities, and for reviewing legislative proposals that impact the 
quality of life experienced by citizens with intellectual disabilities 
and their families.

    Dated: January 25, 2008.
Sally D. Atwater,
Executive Director, President's Committee for People with Intellectual 
Disabilities.
 [FR Doc. E8-1809 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE v. SULLIVAN

No. 441P87.

Case below: 86 N.C. App. 316.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1987.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

**AUSTIN**

!5Smorc;ble

T. I.:. Firet .ssiotat 3.ltM.n ( Tex:?s JunQ 5, 1939

**Yriroblo ,'**  **sto to**  **hqn3rlntendent***e .zSzlri~ of the contractto &Ich you r0reer was expresslymthorlzed by statute as noted &ovo. Vie astmmo thntthe contractams executedandapprmredbytheoounty saperlntendtitti suchmmnerastonmlsethesemeavalSl aontraotof the school districtfor Omosp the trw&aeswam act&g. It ls probablethat thie dlstxictdid 

## not entirely
,butthatsamelssUllln t3xlstmcelnsoalras **cecUanelexmtarysohool** thmelnle concerned. Qtastati.'c~.%~W&S~~ !2"' xc%; cotmty Board ef sahoo1- (2) 805; WdphaLT w. 34x c&lea* eso-s. w. &* &t&e 2922+f,RtmisedC1~ilStatutes. &.Whaxthisbe'txuear not, bmrever, it is OtF 0plnlQnthat the sment aoaldnotbedt!prlv'edorhfs~~tbythegrotxpingonlar.

.constll.ausisl;pairingtheob~~?-~%~~ tocontm&srPadsbytheSta~aa~asbyindirillaals. 6 R.C.L. 333; l2 C.J. 996 and lOl4. & smm llhdse qplus to CcmtTads of aLunlul~tlea. Young 'OS. **city** Qr colora&, s. w. 986.
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 Annual Report of Acquired Sales Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard M. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





/s/ Gerard M. JacobsGerard M. Jacobs Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

November 13, 2012
#### In the Matter of Ralph WILSON, Bankrupt-Appellant.

No. 293.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 18, 1938.

Arnold S. Greene, of New York City, for appellant.

__ S. Earl Levene, of New York City (Émanuel S. Cahn, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order, 19 F.Supp. 807, affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 14, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00733

- CV

Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant

v.

Paul Flanagan, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF J USTICE JONES, JUSTIC ES GOODWIN AND FIELD

REVERSED AND RENDERED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on September 24, 2012. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders

judgment affirming the ALJ’s decision authorizing the susp ension of Flanagan’s driver’s license.

The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.