alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

S AM G LASS C OCK III

V ICE C HANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE C OURT OF C HANCERY C OURTHOUSE

34 T HE C IRCLE

G EORGETOWN

, D ELAWARE 19947

August 24, 2020

Eric D. Schwartz, Esq.

Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Esq.

Thomas P. Will, Esq.

MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNEL

LLP

1201 North Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Richard I.G. Jones, Jr., Esq.

Michael W. McDermott, Esq.

David B. Anthony, Esq.

Peter C. McGivney, Esq.

BERGER HARRIS LLP

1105 North Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: Searchlight CST, L.P. v. MediaMath Holdings, Inc. , C.A. No.

2020

- 0652

- SG

Dear Counsel:

I have the Defendant’s “ Motion for an Order Sealing TRO Hearing. ” The

Motion seeks to place the entire hearing, scheduled for August 26, 2020, under seal.

This Court does not con duct public hearings under seal. T he concept is oxymoronic.

To the extent that information necessarily disclosed in the TRO hearing scheduled

for August 26, 2020 is subject to confidential treatment under Chancery Court Rule

5.1 (or otherwise) the parties may so indicate and the public (if any) may be briefly

excused from the hearing. The public transcript may be treated likewise. Otherwise,

the Motion is denied.

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.2 Sincerely

,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00140

- CV

MICHELLE T. BRADLEY APPELLANT

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE

ASSOCIATION APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDU M OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On May 30, 2012 , we notified appellant that the trial court clerk responsible

for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that payment

arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as req uired by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).

We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

appellant, within ten days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and

provided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 9 , 2012
§ 1726.175 General plant materials. This section covers items such as office furniture and equipment; transportation equipment and accessories, including mobile radio systems, stores and shop equipment, laboratory equipment, tools and test equipment. ( a ) *Contract forms.* The borrower may, in its discretion, use RUS Form 198, Equipment Contract, or a written purchase order.
( b ) *Procurement procedures.* It is the responsibility of each borrower to determine the procurement method that best meets its needs for purchase of general plant material and equipment.
( c ) *Contract approval.* Contracts for the purchase of general plant items are not subject to RUS approval and need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
[60 FR 10155, Feb. 23, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 7109, Feb. 13, 2004]
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623, 333-34163, 333-80575,
333-63374 and 333-106754) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-40369, 333-115052
and 333-65219) on Form S-3 of Research Frontiers Incorporated and
subsidiary of our reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Research Frontiers Incorporated
and subsidiary as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2004, and all related financial statement schedules,
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004
annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated
and subsidiary.


                              /s/ KPMG LLP
                                  KPMG LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 15, 2005
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv30-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LOUIS RAY MARCHETTI,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20cv30-RH-GRJ

OFFICER ROSS et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIMS

AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WARDEN

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 18. No objections have been filed. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. 

2. The claims against the defendant John Doe, Warden for Cross City C.I., 

are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Case 1:20-cv-00030-RH-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv30-RH-GRJ

3. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b). 

4. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on July 14, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00030-RH-GRJ Document 19 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Jane E. Miles, Appellant, v. John W. Miles, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 21, 1968, affirmed, without *554costs. No opinion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and deny defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice of pretrial examination, with the following memorandum: This is a contested separation action brought by a wife against her husband. The husband is self-employed and, with his father, owns a wholesale and retail tire business which, according to the wife, does a substantial business for cash. The wife further says that she has absolutely no knowledge of her husband’s assets or income. On these facts, Special Term granted the husband’s motion to vacate the wife’s notice to examine him before trial as to his finances, citing our holding in *Campbell*v. *Campbell*(7 A D 2d 1011) as authority. In my opinion, *Campbell*does not support Special Term’s decision. *Campbell*merely said that in contested matrimonial actions a wife ordinarily has to show special circumstances entitling her to a pretrial examination concerning her husband’s finances; and here I believe the wife has made the required showing by averring that her husband is self-employed and she has no knowledge of his income and assets (cf. *Kasden*v. *Kasden,*49 Misc 2d 743; *Matter of Hirsch*v. *Hirsch,*53 Misc 2d 938). Such construction of *Campbell*accords with modern practice permitting the fullest possible pretrial exploration of material, relevant issues; at the same time, by reason of the limited scope of such examinations, it avoids the dangers of harassment that might result from an unlimited exploration of all the issues in matrimonial actions (see *Berlin*v. *Berlin,*17 Misc 2d 768 and cases cited therein; *Kasden*v. *Kasden, supra).*Moreover, as in this Judicial Department all issues in matrimonial actions are determined in a single trial (despite the erroneous statement to the contrary in *Berlin),*my construction of *Campbell,*unlike that of the majority, would eliminate the need for a two-stage trial, with an interruption to allow the wife, if successful in the first stage, to examine her husband concerning his finances before the second stage of the trial.
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.253 Objectives. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Borrowers must graduate to other credit at reasonable rates and terms when they are able to do so.
( c ) If a borrower refuses to graduate, the account will be liquidated under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The borrower has the legal capacity and financial ability to obtain other credit.
( 2 ) Other credit is available from a commercial lender at reasonable rates and terms. In the case of Labor Housing (LH), Rural Rental Housing (RRH), and Rural Cooperative Housing (RCH) Programs, reasonable rates and terms must also permit the borrowers to continue providing housing for low and moderate income persons at rental rates tenants can afford considering the loss of any subsidy which will be canceled when the loan is paid in full.
( d ) The Agency will enforce borrower graduation.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Western GamingCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I DeAnn Moore, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1)  the Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

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

 

/s/DeAnn Moore

DeAnn Moore

Secretary/Treasurer

November 30, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.961 Allocation of appropriated funds. ( a ) *Initial allocations.* ( 1 ) Each FY, from sums appropriated for direct loans, loan guarantees, or grants for any designated rural development program, funds will be allocated to designated States in accordance with RD Instruction subpart L of part 1940, exhibit A, attachment 4, of this chapter (available in any RD State or District Office).
( 2 ) Each FY, and normally within 30 days after the date Rural Development receives an appropriation of designated rural development program funds, the Governor of each designated State will be notified of the amounts allocated to the State under each designated program for such FY. The Governor will also be notified of the total amounts appropriated for the FY for each designated rural development program.
( 3 ) The State Director will fund projects from a designated State's allocation of funds, according to appropriate program regulations giving great weight to the order in which the preapplications/applications for projects are ranked and listed by the panel in accordance with § 1940.956(b)(3) of this subpart.
( b ) *Reserve.* A percentage of the National Office reserve established in subpart L of part 1940 of this chapter will be used to establish a reserve for designated States that is separate and apart from that of nondesignated States. The percent reserved will be based upon the same criteria used in subpart L of part 1940 of this chapter to allocate program funds.
( c ) *Pooling.* ( 1 ) On July 15 of each FY, and from time to time thereafter during the FY, as determined appropriate, unobligated funds will be pooled from among the designated States. Pooled funds will be made a part of the reserve established for designated States and will revert to National Office control.
( 2 ) Funds pooled from designated States can be requested by designated States, pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. The designated States' pool; however, will not be available to nondesignated States until September 1 of each year.
( d ) *Request for funds.* ( 1 ) Designated States may request designated States' reserve funds, and funds for other designated rural development programs controlled by the National Office, as shown in RD Instruction subpart L of part 1940, exhibit A, attachment 4, of this chapter, in accordance with applicable program regulations.
( 2 ) Designated States may request funds from the nondesignated reserve account when: ( i ) All allocated and reserve funds to designated states have been used, or
( ii ) Sufficient funds do not remain in any designated State allocation and in the designated States' reserve account to fund a project.
#### The State ex rel. Eblin, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel Eblin v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 122.]

(No. 96-2136

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Law Office of Thomas Tootle*and *Thomas Tootle,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Steven P. Fixler,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., dissents.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
#### § 1206.21 Suspend.

*Suspend* means to issue a rule under section 553 of title 5, U.S.C., to temporarily prevent the operation of an order or part thereof during a particular period of time specified in the rule.
<PAGE>   1
                    [Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson LLP letterhead]

                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                       1997 10-K


                        Independent Accountants' Consent

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 (No. 333-26373), the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-45385), and
the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81178, 33-81180, 33-81182 and
333-01937) of F&M Bancorporation, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of F&M Bancorporation, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report is
included in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of F&M
Bancorporation, Inc., and to the continued references to our firm as experts in
those Registration Statements.



                                                /s/ Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson LLP
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Certified Public Accountants






Appleton, Wisconsin
March 24, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Noland, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered Hay 7, 1965, reversed, on the facts, and new trial ordered. While the general rule is that, when a victim or “ a witness positively identifies a defendant as the man who committed a crime, the weight of the evidence of identification is for the jury unless it is incredible as a matter of law ” *(People*v. *Seppi,*221 N. Y. 62, 68), it is our opinion that the evidence of identification was insufficient to support a finding that the evidence proved defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11-1

THE NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)    Earnings (Loss) Per Share of Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents    (In thousands, except
per share data)

|                                                |  | Year Ended December 31, |      
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -----
|
|Net income (loss) applicable to common stock    |  | $                       | 3,668
|Average number of common shares outstanding     |  |                         | 8,419
|Net income (loss) per shareBasic               |  | $                       | 0.44 
|Average number of common shares outstanding     |  |                         | 8,419
|Add: Assumed exercise of stock options          |  |                         | 128  
|                                                |  |                         |      
|Common and common equivalent shares outstanding |  |                         | 8,547
|                                                |  |                         |      
|Net income (loss) per shareDiluted             |  | $                       | 0.43 

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1989 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1989

To require the Forest Service to accommodate, to the extent consistent 
   with the management objectives and limitations applicable to the 
   National Forest System lands at issue, individuals with mobility 
    disabilities who need to use a power-driven mobility device for 
                    reasonable access to such lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2013

Mr. Alexander introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural 
 Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Forest Service to accommodate, to the extent consistent 
   with the management objectives and limitations applicable to the 
   National Forest System lands at issue, individuals with mobility 
    disabilities who need to use a power-driven mobility device for 
                    reasonable access to such lands.

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

SECTION 1. ACCOMMODATION OF ACCESS NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH MOBILITY 
              DISABILITIES UNDER FOREST SERVICE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE.

    (a) Consideration of Access Needs of Individuals With Mobility 
Disabilities.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief 
of the Forest Service, shall require Forest Service personnel, in 
implementing off-road vehicle management under the Forest Service 
Travel Management Rule, to endeavor to accommodate, to the extent 
consistent with the management objectives and limitations applicable to 
the National Forest System lands at issue, individuals with mobility 
disabilities who would need to use a power-driven mobility device for 
reasonable access to such lands.
    (b) Response to Requests for Access.--If, after receiving a request 
by or on behalf of an individual with mobility disabilities for 
permission to use a power-driven mobility device to access specific 
National Forest System lands, Forest Service personnel determine that 
use of such a power-driven mobility device is not appropriate given the 
management objectives and limitations applicable to the National Forest 
System lands at issue, the Forest Service personnel shall provide the 
individual with a written response containing an explanation of the 
reasons for the determination.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6127

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

C. FIX; A. MORRIS; L. M. KIER; L. RICHARDS;

W. COOK; L. M. SAUNDERS; D. SWISHER; AUGUSTA

CORRECTIONAL CENTER; LARRY HUFFMAN; JACK LEE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-9-740-R)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell

Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Collin Jefferson Hite,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Fix, No. CA-95-740-R

(W.D. Va. Dec. 12, 1996). 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
| 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:      March 31, 2009 | /s/      Brian M.      Carter                                                                                                |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |      Brian      M. Carter, Chief Executive          and Chief Financial Officer |
|                      |                                                                                                                         |