alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  September 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Travelers Asset Management International Corporation
Address:   One Tower Square
           Hartford, Connecticut 06183

Form 13F File Number:              28-3308

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Millie Kim
Title:     Assistant Secretary
Phone:     (212) 816-4952

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Millie Kim       New York, New York       November 12, 1999
--------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Preformed Line Products Company
for the period ended March 31, 2009 which this certification accompanies 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 Preformed
Line Products Company.
 May 8, 2009
    /s/ Robert G. RuhlmanRobert G. RuhlmanChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1000

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 7, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft National

Historic Site in the State of Ohio, to authorize an exchange of land in connection with the historic site, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1000 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘William Howard Taft

3 National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act of

4 2001’’.

5 SEC. 2. EXCHANGE OF LANDS AND BOUNDARY ADJUST6 MENT, WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT NATIONAL

7 HISTORIC SITE, OHIO.

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

9 (1) HISTORIC SITE.—The term ‘‘historic site’’

10 means the William Howard Taft National Historic

11 Site in Cincinnati, Ohio, established pursuant to

12 Public Law 91–132 (83 Stat. 273; 16 U.S.C. 461

13 note).

14 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en15 titled ‘‘Proposed Boundary Map, William Howard

16 Taft National Historic Site, Hamilton County, Cin17 cinnati, Ohio,’’ numbered 448/80,025, and dated

18 November 2000.

19 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

20 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di21 rector of the National Park Service.

22 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF LAND EXCHANGE.—

23 (1) EXCHANGE.—The Secretary may acquire a

24 parcel of real property consisting of less than one

25 acre, which is depicted on the map as the ‘‘Proposed

26 Exchange Parcel (Outside Boundary)’’, in exchange
3

HR 1000 RFS

1 for a parcel of real property, also consisting of less

2 than one acre, which is depicted on the map as the

3 ‘‘Current USA Ownership (Inside Boundary)’’.

4 (2) EQUALIZATION OF VALUES.—If the values

5 of the parcels to be exchanged under paragraph (1)

6 are not equal, the difference may be equalized by do7 nation, payment using donated or appropriated

8 funds, or the conveyance of additional land.

9 (3) ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARY.—The Sec10 retary shall revise the boundary of the historic site

11 to reflect the exchange upon its completion.

12 (c) ADDITIONAL BOUNDARY REVISION AND ACQUISI13 TION AUTHORITY.—

14 (1) INCLUSION OF PARCEL IN BOUNDARY.—Ef15 fective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the

16 boundary of the historic site is revised to include an

17 additional parcel of real property, which is depicted

18 on the map as the ‘‘Proposed Acquisition’’.

19 (2) ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary

20 may acquire the parcel referred to in paragraph (1)

21 by donation, purchase from willing sellers with do22 nated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

23 (d) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file

24 and available for public inspection in the appropriate of25 fices of the National Park Service.
4

HR 1000 RFS

1 (e) ADMINISTRATION OF ACQUIRED LANDS.—Any

2 lands acquired under this section shall be administered by

3 the Secretary as part of the historic site in accordance

4 with applicable laws and regulations.

Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                       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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company,
serving as Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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.


Date: February 13, 2007                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Chief Financial Officer)




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44054

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAVID PROVENCIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 719

Filed: October 5, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Steve J. Hippler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for involuntary manslaughter with a deadly 

weapon, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. 

Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

David Provencio pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon. Idaho 

Code §§ 18-4006(2), 19-2520. The district court sentenced Provencio to a unified term of fifteen 

years with five years determinate. Provencio appeals asserting that the district court abused its 

discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction.

The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to 

obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for 

probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction. 
2

State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 

567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s 

refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to 

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe, 113 Idaho 

977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based 

upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction.

Therefore, Provencio’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1354-000]

Occidental Chemical Corporation; Supplemental Notice that Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

August 28, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Occidental Chemical Corporation's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 17, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected] 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20526 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4059.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 19, 2002.

Decided Nov. 19, 2002.

Kenneth W. Ravenell, Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Martin J. Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Mark Thompson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Thompson first contends the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him. Thompson contends he was denied the right to a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. *United States v. Ward,*171 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir.1999). We find no error in the district court’s decision to deny Thompson’s motion. *See Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).

Thompson next contends the district court erred in denying his suppression motion. This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing the legal determinations de novo. *United States v. Rusher,*966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, *see United States v. Seidman,*156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th *186Cir.1998), we find that at the time of Thompson’s seizure, police at the very least had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. *See Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Consequently, the court properly denied Thompson’s suppression motion.

Accordingly, Thompson’s conviction is affirmed. 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.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00788-CV

J. F.-W., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-12-006308, HONORABLE RHONDA HURLEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant J.F.-W. has informed this Court that he no longer wishes to pursue this

appeal and has filed a motion to dismiss it. Counsel for appellant states that she has conferred with

counsel for appellee Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and it does not oppose

this motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 27, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 29 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 29

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of 
                          equal high quality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2001

  Mr. Jackson of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of 
                          equal high quality.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. All citizens of the United States shall enjoy the 
right to health care of equal high quality.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have power to implement this 
article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Max Frank MASSFELLER, as Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Daytona Beach, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Henry L. HANNA, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 30, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32





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


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-K for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.




Date: February 27, 2014








/S/ Steven J. Johnston


Steven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERA


President and Chief Executive Officer








/S/ Michael J. Sewell


Michael J. Sewell, CPA


Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51306

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN COBIN MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-9-CR-975-ALL-H

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

December 19, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Corbin Martin appeals his conviction for possession of

machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Martin argues

that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress based on live

testimony, we accept the district court's factual findings unless

they are clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of

the law. United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir.

1993). “‘Where the judge bases a finding of consent on the oral

testimony at a suppression hearing, the clearly erroneous standard
No. 00-51306

-2-

is particularly strong since the judge had the opportunity to

observe the demeanor of the witnesses.’” United States v. Kelley,

981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v.

Sutton, 850 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir. 1988)). 

There is nothing in the record to show that the district court

was clearly erroneous in finding that Martin was aware of his

rights and consented to cooperate for the purpose of securing a

civilian prosecution rather than a court martial, that no promise

of immunity had been made to induce the consent to search, and that

Martin’s decision to cooperate had been an act of free will. See

United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir. 1997). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Martin’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v.

Grant, 117 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Carr,

740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                   BD
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES INC. AS OF
AND FOR THE PERIODS ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                    33,803
<RECEIVABLES>                            737,739
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                       40,202
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                      232,840
<PP&E>                                    33,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,211,118
<SHORT-TERM>                             264,625
<PAYABLES>                               465,049
<REPOS-SOLD>                              24,244
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                        53,637
<LONG-TERM>                               38,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  19,130
<OTHER-SE>                               169,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,211,118
<TRADING-REVENUE>                         37,184
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                      14,785
<COMMISSIONS>                             61,599
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>             29,981
<FEE-REVENUE>                             10,046
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         7,593
<COMPENSATION>                           103,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           16,727
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                16,727
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              10,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.54 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.51 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>  BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE - COMPUTED UNDER SFAS 128
<F2>  DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE - COMPUTED UNDER SFAS 128
</FN>
        

</TABLE>