alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SATURNA INVESTMENT TRUST

# Proposed Resolution

**Resolved**, that theproposed Fidelity Bond coverage under the Investment Company Blanket Bond ofICI Mutual Insurance Company, to expire December 15, 2014, under which theTrust, Saturna Capital Corporation, Amana Mutual Funds Trust and SaturnaBrokerage Services, Inc. are joint insureds, be, and hereby is, determined tobe reasonable in amount in view of all the circumstances and with considerationincluding, but not limited to, (i) the number of other parties named asinsureds, (ii) the nature of the business activities of such other parties,(iii) the amount of the joint insured bond, (iv) the amount of the premium forsuch bond, (v) the ratable allocation of the premium among all parties named asinsureds, (vi) the extent to which the share of the premium allocated to theTrust is less than the premium the Trust would have had to pay if it hadprovided and maintained a single insured bond, (vii) the value of theanticipated aggregate assets of the Trust to which any covered persons haveaccess; (viii) peer fund coverages; and (ix) the nature of the securities to beheld in the portfolios of the Trust; and be it

**Further Resolved**,that the proposed D&O/E&OInsurance of ICI Mutual Insurance Company, to expire December 15, 2014, underwhich the Trust, Saturna Capital Corporation, Saturna Trust Company, SaturnaBrokerage Services, Inc. and Saturna Investment Trust are joint insureds, be,and hereby is, determined to be reasonable and of benefit to the shareowners ofthe Trust; and be it

**Further Resolved**, that pro-rataallocation of the premiums for the Fidelity Bond and D&O/E&O Insuranceprovided by ICI Mutual Insurance Company among each of the portfolios of theTrust is approved; and be it

**Further Resolved**, that participation by the Trust in thejoint liability insurance policies is in the best interest of each of theportfolios of the Trust; and be it

**FurtherResolved,** that the participation by the Trust in the joint Fidelity Bondand D&O/E&O Insurance are fair and reasonable pro-rata to each of theportfolios of the Trust; and be it

**FurtherResolved,**that the benefits of continuing a joint fidelity bond from the ICIMutual Insurance Company, including the opportunity to obtain stable low-costinsurance coverage from ICI Mutual, justify maintaining reserve premiums andmaking commitments for additional payments, including acceptance ofrestrictions upon the withdrawal of reserve premiums.

**FurtherResolved,**that the Secretary of the Trust is appointed as the officer responsibleto file executed fidelity bonds annually as required by Rule 17g-1(h) of theInvestment Company Act, including a copy of the executed joint insured bond anda resolution by the majority of the disinterested trustees approving theamount, type, form and coverage of the bond and the portion of the premium tobe paid by each insured company.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 772

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that foreign base 

company shipping income shall include only income from aircraft and 

income from certain vessels transporting petroleum and related products. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. WELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that foreign base company shipping income shall include 

only income from aircraft and income from certain vessels transporting petroleum and related products.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘RAFT (Restore Access 

5 to Foreign Trade) Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 772 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MOST VESSEL SHIPPING INCOME 

2 FROM FOREIGN BASE COMPANY INCOME. 

3 (a) FOREIGN BASE COMPANY SHIPPING INCOME TO

4 INCLUDE ONLY INCOME FROM AIRCRAFT AND PETRO5 LEUM VESSELS.—Subsection (f) of section 954 of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign base 

7 company income) is amended—

8 (1) by inserting ‘‘petroleum’’ before ‘‘vessel’’ 

9 each place it appears, and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen11 tence: ‘‘For purposes of this subsection, the term 

12 ‘petroleum vessel’ means any vessel engaged in the 

13 carriage of petroleum or related products or byprod14 ucts if the controlled group (as defined in section 

15 267(f)(1) without regard to section 1563(b)(2)(C)) 

16 of which the taxpayer is a member is engaged prin17 cipally in the trade or business of exploring for, or 

18 extracting, refining or marketing of, petroleum or 

19 related products or byproducts.’’

20 (b) RETENTION OF SEPARATE FOREIGN TAX CREDIT

21 BASKET FOR ALL SHIPPING INCOME.—Subparagraph (D) 

22 of section 904(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 

23 ‘‘(as defined in section 954(f))’’ and inserting ‘‘, as de24 fined in section 954(f), if references in such section to pe25 troleum vessels included references to all vessels’’. 
3

•HR 772 IH 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years of foreign corpora3 tions beginning after December 31, 2002, and to taxable 

4 years of United States shareholders (within the meaning 

5 of section 951(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 

6 within which or with which such taxable years of such for7 eign corporations end.

Æ
from the delay. See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-64, 1 P.3d 969, 972

(2000). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

## le_44 1 Hardesty 

## tx-el 1 Douglas 

# aks,,t 7 Cherry cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Brett Dagan Jones Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 J.

J.

(0) 1947A (4400
|   | The      Trust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust      Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company  Americas: |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Servicing      criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) is applicable only with respect to the Company’s      continuing obligation to act as, or locate a, successor servicer under the      circumstances referred to in certain transaction agreements.  It      is management's interpretation that the Company has no other active      back-up servicing responsibilities in regards to 1122(d)(1)(iii) as of and      for the year ended December 31, 2008. Furthermore, Management’s Assertion      of Compliance indicates that there were no activities performed related to      this criterion during the year ended December 31, 2008 with respect to the      Platform, because there were no occurrences of events that would require      the Company to perform suchactivities. |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Servicing      criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii) is applicable to the activities the Company      performs with respect to the Platform only as it relates to the Company’s      obligation to report additions, removals or substitutions on reports to      investors in accordance with the transactions  agreements. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----
#### CASTOR SOCKET CO. v. STANDARD CASTOR WHEEL CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

October 17, 1902.)

No. 1,018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.

Taggart, Denison & Wilson, for appellant. Kingsley & Wicks, Willard Parker, and Felix Jellenik, for appellee.

Dismissed.
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 211

Recognizing and commending the members of the Navy and Marine Corps 

who served on the USS Abraham Lincoln and welcoming them home 

from their recent mission abroad. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2003

Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself, Mr. DICKS, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. 

SKELTON, Ms. DUNN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. HASTINGS of 

Washington, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. BAIRD, and Mr. INSLEE) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 

Services 

RESOLUTION

Recognizing and commending the members of the Navy and 

Marine Corps who served on the USS Abraham Lincoln 

and welcoming them home from their recent mission 

abroad.

Whereas the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) is the United 

States’ fifth Nimitz–class aircraft carrier and has its 

homeport at Naval Station Everett in Washington; 

Whereas the USS Abraham Lincoln serves as home to 5,000 

brave members of the Navy and Marine Corps and carries approximately 70 combat and support aircraft; 

Whereas the USS Abraham Lincoln is scheduled to return to 

its homeport on May 6, 2003, after nearly ten months on 
2

•HRES 211 IH 

deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Southern 

Watch; 

Whereas the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln was 

the longest for a nuclear–powered aircraft carrier since 

1973; 

Whereas, in December 2002, the USS Abraham Lincoln completed a six–month deployment in the Persian Gulf conducting operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism and was returning to its homeport when it was ordered back to the Persian Gulf in January 2003 to support what was to become Operation Iraqi Freedom; 

Whereas during the nearly ten–month deployment of the USS 

Abraham Lincoln, there were 12,700 takeoffs and trap 

landings, 16,500 sorties, 265,118 pounds of ordinance 

expended during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Southern Watch, and 1,600,000 pounds of ordinance expended during Operation Iraqi Freedom; 

Whereas the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln featured numerous firsts, including the first use of the 

Super Hornet and the first operational availability of the 

‘‘Man Overboard Indicator’’ onboard the USS Abraham 

Lincoln; 

Whereas the citizens of the City of Everett, the County of 

Snohomish, the State of Washington, and the United 

States are proud of the members of the Navy and Marine 

Corps who serve on the USS Abraham Lincoln: Now, 

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes and commends the members of the Navy and Marine 
3

•HRES 211 IH 

1 Corps who serve on the USS Abraham Lincoln and wel2 comes them home from their recent mission abroad.

Æ
No. 1235.

#### United States ex rel. Goodman *v.*Roberts, Commanding Officer.

June 10, 1946.

*Harry Mesard*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# SITC Import Price Indexes
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DAVID M. MEADIUS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 607 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### SMITH FROZEN FOODS OF IDAHO, Inc. v. MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CO., Inc.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 7, 1953.

Max Tirschwell, New York City, for plaintiff.

Debevoise, Plimpton & McLean, New York City, Daniel W. West, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Upon a review of the pleadings and contentions of the respective parties, I am persuaded that the issues of custom, practice, and the oral agreement, as alleged in the complaint, require that the deposition be taken by oral examination and that written interrogatories would be quite inadequate.1

Accordingly, the motion to vacate the notice for the deposition of the plaintiff by oral examination is denied, but the order to be entered may contain an appropriate provision that, at plaintiffs option, the examination may be conducted at Pendleton, Oregon, or Lewiston, Idaho, provided it defrays the expenses of defendant’s attorneys (they having waived counsel fees), as outlined in Morrison Export Co. v. Goldstone, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 258; Worth v. Trans World Films, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197.

Settle order on notice.

1

. See V. O. Machinoimport v. Clark Equipment Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 55; Worth v. Trans World Films, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197.
No. 1135.

#### Rubin *v.*New York.

May 20, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6646** 

DARRIS ALTONY NEWSOME , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. HAROLD CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00449

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : October 26, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Darris Altony Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darris Altony Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonabl e jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pr ocedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed t he record and conclude that
Newsome has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newsome’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES                 FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Westvaco Development                  Rigesa, Ltda.
Corporation                           Valinhos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Summerville, South Carolina

Westvaco Kentucky, L.P.               Westvaco Asia, K.K.
Wickliffe, Kentucky                   Tokyo, Japan

The Forest Technology Group,          Westvaco Europe, S.A.
Inc.                                  Brussels, Belgium
Summerville, South Carolina

Westvaco Virginia, Inc.               Westvaco Canada, Ltd.
Covington, Virginia                   Toronto, Canada

Westvaco Texas, L.P.                  Westvaco (Barbados) Foreign
Delaware                              Sales Corporation
                                      Bridgtown, Barbados
AGI Incorporated
Illinois                              Westvaco Hong Kong, Ltd.
                                      Hong Kong
Klearfold, Inc.
Pennsylvania                          Westvaco Korea, Ltd.
                                      Seoul, South Korea
Westvaco Brand Security
                                      Westvaco de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Upland Resources, Inc.                Mexico City, Mexico
West Virginia
                                      Westvaco Pacific Pty. Limited
MPC Packaging Corporation             Sydney, Australia
North Carolina
                                      Westvaco Singapore Pte., Ltd.
Mebane Packaging Group, Inc.          Singapore
North Carolina
                                      Westvaco Specialty Products, S.A.
Mebane Tennessee, Inc.                Brussels, Belgium
Tennessee
                                      Westvaco South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Mebane Packaging Group de Puerto      Cape Town, South Africa
Rico
Delaware
                                      Westvaco Svitavy, SPOL. S R.O.
IMPAC Group, Inc. (U.S.)              Svitavy, Czech Republic
Delaware
                                      Westvaco Taiwan, Ltd.
COGEN SOUTH L.L.C.                    Taipei, Taiwan

                                      Westvaco Worldwide
                                      Distribution, S.A.
                                      Neuchatel, Switzerland

<PAGE>


FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES (continued)
Westvaco Graphics, S.A.
Switzerland

Shore Islands, S.L.
Spain

IMPAC Group, Inc. (Europe)
England and Wales

Sony Music Printing Group
The Netherlands

DuBOIS Holdings, Ltd.
Hannover, Germany
###                                    THE AAL MUTUAL FUNDS
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in uWink, Inc.'s previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-116807 (filed on June 24,
2004), 333-122907 (filed on February 18, 2005), 333-135113 (filed on June 19,
2006) and 333-138778 (filed on November 17, 2006)), Form SB-2 (File No.
333-147557 filed on November 21, 2007) and Form SB-2/A  (Amendment No.
4 to Form SB-2, file No. 333-137661 filed on February 14, 2007, as amended on
November 21, 2007 by our Form SB-2 file No. 333-147557), of our report, dated
March 20, 2008, for the fiscal years ended January 1, 2008 and January 2, 2007,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of uWink, Inc. for the year ended
January 1, 2008.








/s/
Kabani & Company, Inc.


Los
Angeles


March 31,
2008
#### Sandra BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. Steve CHARLES, M.D. and Mid-South Hospital, Inc., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 83-3541-C.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

July 2, 1985.

*281Sandra Bennett, pro se.

Kenneth A. Behar, O’Leary, Behar and Kalman, Boston, Mass., for defendants Steve Charles, M.D. & Mid-South Hosp.

MEMORANDUM

CAFFREY, Chief Judge.

This is a diversity action arising out of medical treatment rendered to plaintiff by defendants in Memphis, Tennessee. The matter is now before the Court on defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the statute on which this motion is based, provides:

> For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.

The transferral of an action to another district is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court, which should carefully consider all factors bearing upon the appropriateness of each of the contending forums. *E.g., Spound v. Action Industries, Inc.,*369 F.Supp. 1066 (N.D.Ill.1974). In this regard, I note that the cause of action arose in Tennessee and that the substantive issues in the case will be determined according to Tennessee law. Furthermore, both defendants reside in Tennessee, and their contacts with Massachusetts are limited. It is therefore uncertain that this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants if the case were to proceed in this district. Finally, and importantly, the record reveals that plaintiff has already begun an identical action against these same defendants in federal court in Memphis, Tennessee. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has stayed that action pending this Court’s resolution of the issue of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, both of whom are residents of Tennessee, and are not doing business in Massachusetts. Defendants have raised this matter in a separate motion.

Plaintiff, who appears *pro se,*alleges that her poverty, her diabetes, and her visual impairment will adversely affect her ability to litigate her case in Tennessee. Although the Court is sensitive to plaintiff’s problems, her difficulties do not outweigh the compelling facts set forth above which clearly demonstrate that the existence of jurisdiction in this Court is gravely doubtful at best and the desirability of transferring this case to Tennessee. I therefore rule that defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, should be granted.

Order accordingly.
|   |   | /s/      John M. Herndon                                                          |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John      M. HerndonAssistant      SecretaryThe      Aquila Group of FundsⓇ |   |
Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of WJ Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Fred J. Krupica, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

|/s/FRED J. KRUPICA                                                                   |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|Fred J. Krupica
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
March 27, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32 (b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jay W. Rembolt, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WD-40 Company (the Company), have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2011 (the Report). For purposes of Section 1350 of Title 18, United States Code, I certify 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: October 20, 2011



/s/ JAY W. REMBOLTJay W. RemboltVice President and Chief Financial Officer