alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**729 CA 13-02144**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

STEVEN M. PHILLIPS, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN J. PHILLIPS, DECEASED, AND AS SUCCESSOR ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A. OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM G. PHILLIPS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
V ORDER BROCK, SCHECHTER & POLAKOFF, LLP, LAWRENCE LEVIN, C.P.A., AND FRANK A. KACZMARCZYK, C.P.A., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

------------------------------------------------ BROCK, SCHECHTER & POLAKOFF, LLP, LAWRENCE LEVIN, C.P.A. AND FRANK A. KACZMARCZYK, C.P.A., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS,
V LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE C. TENNEY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN R. BIGGIE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS. GELBER & O’CONNELL, LLC, AMHERST (HERSCHEL GELBER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. HISCOCK & BARCLAY, BUFFALO (DAVID M. HEHR OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Tracey A. Bannister, J.), entered September 13, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants-third-party plaintiffs to compel the further deposition of an employee of third-party defendant. Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation withdrawing appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on May 20, 29 and June 10, 2015, It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have not been able to obtain, after reasonable efforts, the written consent
from our former independent public accountant, Arthur Andersen LLP, to our
incorporation by reference on Form 10-K pertaining to D&K Healthcare Resources,
Inc. of their report dated August 7, 2001 with respect to the financial
statements and the supplemental schedule of D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc.
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2001, as
required by Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Accordingly,
you will be unable to recover amounts sought in any action against Arthur
Andersen LLP, the former independent public accountant, pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations thereunder, and therefore any right
of recovery may be limited as a result of the lack of that consent.

                                       50
<PAGE>
                                                               Exhibit 12 (a)


                             XEROX CREDIT CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (In Millions)


                         Three Months Ended
                             March 31,          Year Ended December 31,

                            1997   1996     1996    1995   1994   1993   1992


Income before income taxes $  32  $  32    $ 123   $ 119  $ 147  $ 154  $ 158

Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense (2)
     Xerox debt                2      1        5       6      5      4      2
     Other debt               51     51      199     213    197    205    210
       Total fixed charges    53     52      204     219    202    209    212

Earnings available for
  fixed charges            $  85  $  84    $ 327   $ 338  $ 349  $ 363  $ 370

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges (1)         1.60   1.62     1.60    1.54   1.73   1.74   1.75



(1)  The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed based on the
     Company's continuing operations by dividing total earnings available
     for fixed charges by total fixed charges.


(2)  Debt had been assigned to discontinued operations based on the net 
assets of the discontinued operations and the debt to equity ratios that 
existed at the time the assets were acquired. Beginning in 1995, the 
amount of interest expense that would have been allocated to 
discontinued operations is insignificant and is now being reported 
within continuing operations and therefore included in the fixed 
charges. Discontinued operations consist of the Company's real estate 
development and related financing operations and its third-party 
financing and leasing businesses.     



















(21)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL WINDHAM, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MANUEL SABIN; ZITONG YUN, R.N.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 17113

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 01058

- MCE

CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges

Califor nia state prisoner Samuel Windham, Jr. appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs

. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F .3d 1051, 1056 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 17113

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Windham

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defend ants were

deliberately indifferent in the treatment of W indham’s leg skin grafts. See id. at

1057

- 60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning

the course of treatment, medical malpractice, and negligence in diagnosing or

treati ng a medical condition do not amo unt to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Windham’s motion

for appointme nt of counsel because Windham did not demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for

appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Windham’ s state law negli gence claim. See

Fichman v. Media Ctr. , 512 F.3d 1157, 1162

- 63 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court does

not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state

claims after granting summary judgment on federal c laims).

We reject as meritless Windham’s contentions that he stated a colorable

Fourteenth Amendment claim in his operative complaint, his Seventh Amendment3 17

- 17113

right t o a jury trial was viola ted, and his procedural due process rights were

violated when his a ction was removed wit hout his consent to federal court.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raise d and argue d

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### Madden, Respondent, vs. Kinney and others, Appellants.

*April 27*

May *13, 1902.*

*Appeal: Insufficient return.*

Unless it appears by tlie certificate of the clerk that the return on appeal from an order of the court contains the papers used by each party on the application therefor, as provided by sec. 3050, Stats. 1898, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Eond du Lac county: Michael Kiewan, Circuit Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

■ For the appellants there was a brief by *J. M. Gooding,*attorney, and *D. D. Sutherland,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Sutherland.*

*Edward S. Bragg,*for the respondeat.

*529Winslow, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunctional order, and continuing the same in force until the further order of the court. The action was in equity, and was brought by the plaintiff, as a taxpayer and father of three children attending the public schools of Eond du Lac, against the members of the board of education and the superintendent of schools of said city, for the purpose of declaring void an order of the board changing certain textbooks in said schools, and enjoining the carrying out of said order on the ground that the action of the board was fraudulent and illegal for reasons stated at length in the complaint. The action was brought by the plaintiff on his own behalf aqcl on behalf of all others similarly situated. Upon the verified complaint, an order to show cause was granted why an in-junctional order *pendente lite*should not be made, and in the meantime a temporary restraining order was made. The defendants appeared, and upon affidavits moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order. Both motions were heard at the same time, and the plaintiff at the hearing produced affidavits in reply to the affidavits of the defendants. After hearing the motion, the order appealed from was made, the order reciting that the motions were heard together “upon dhe bill of complaint and upon the affidavits read on behalf of the defendants and upon behalf of the complainant.”

In response to the appeal two bundles of papers have been returned to this court, both certified by the clerk to contain the original and all the papers in the action which have been filed in his office. There is no certificate by the clerk that the “papers used by each party on the application” for the order appealed from are contained in either return. Sec. 3050, Stats. 1898. Thus we are unable to determine, either from the recitals in the order or from the clerk’s certificate, that we have before us all of the papers which were used upon the motions and upon which the order was based. In such a *530situation the rule is well established that the appeal must be dismissed. *Ryan v. Philippi,*108 Wis. 254, 83 N. W. 1103, and cases cited.

’' *By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
COJU JJ#mAf; 

m!ORA.tillU?·l FOR CHIEFS OF STAFF DMSIOl~ A?JO OFFICES 

SUBJEXn'i Projects tor Technie&l ~ ~ 

lo I have establlahed a Tachnical Management Boazod~ composed of 

Irdlmbera troc ?;sit and the Service ceyptologic &gGllCies, to whom I can 

present problama tor study and receive reccllllW8l'ldaionso other details 

concerning this Board a.re avanabl.& 1n r& C1rculars lJ.2-1 and ll2-2 

and General Order Noo 6lo The purpose of this memor&lldum ie to insure 

that the Chi&ta ot the Office& Md statt Div1aicm8 are acquainted with 

th0 avaU..abilit.y of the TGChnioal MaM.ganant Hoard .for obtai..ning de.ta 

and x-ecammendationa regarding problsme tih1ch involve the ceyptologic agencieso 

2o Due to the canposition end minion of the TMB, it oan pertcmn 

etudUs and sul:llldt recc•11ueztdat!ona ubich include th$ vim1p01nt ot 

senior apokellD&n frail the Service cryptologic agenciu, as wU as 

those ot NSAo !he problema proposed by 10U aboul.d be ot such nature 

that th1e kind ot attention ia neceeeary &rd/or des1rableo Tbziough thi*l 

mtpGdient the studios should bocalle broader in mcope and more authoritative 

than thoue Wdoh IU"G present,ed ~ by 11\Y statt or bY another 

member apncyo Thue, they should provide me 1111.th the very beet foundation 

and guidance on 'lllhich to bw oorreetive action&. 

.30 I 1ntelld tor thlil 'tMB to work on problems0 the solution o! Wich ) rest.a. or appeara to Nat 0 bEG"Olld the 9CopG ot nonnal he&dquari.era start 

actionao Your presentations of probl.Gmui chould include & atatemsnt ot . ~ you belie'VG thil to be &Oo 

4o The Chief's o£ the Ofticea and Staff Di vlrdonia tdll rsviw their 

reaporud.bilitiu in respect to field operations and i\lmioh the Chairman 

ot the Technical~ Board (Comptrollor~ NSA) by JS January 19.54 ~ 

with euggcated itema f'or considarst!on by tM Boardo I will 1'iViev these 

sugguted itema and eelect ooos tor action by the Boardo 

50 SUgguted items should be presented id.th supporting data 'ldhich 

v1ll identif¥ the problanc clearll' delineate ita scope, and contAin an 

estimate ot the time for a working group to study the prob~ In order 

that poaitive relNlts ~be obtained without undue delq, project.a should bo reco•pMndoo that vill be Nlativel.3 ahort 1n duration; therefore~ 

in same 1natances it ~ be deairable to divide l\ major topic into separate 

project.So 

60 l desire that the fuJJ@st consideration be given within each 

MA component to ~&is rellpOnaibUities in respect to the wrld-vidc 

oper8tiona ot tM UoSo cryptologic eff'ol"tQ I desire that the Technical 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-17-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

CONFIDENTIAL 
.. 

----

JI~ Board be utilised tme1"e co11111on problems exist, or standardisation 

and impl'ovsmenta are desired.0 'td.tbin the Service cryptologic agencieso The 

result• obtained trom thie Board )1111 more than compensate tor the time 

spent by NBA personnel serving as principal members or M lllp8C1Aliats on 

vorld.ng groupao 

0 

.. 

CONFIDENTIAL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT FUND JUNE 30, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          68,186
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,602
<PP&E>                                       5,985,345
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,091,948
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,418,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,178
<BONDS>                                      1,742,355
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,540,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,418,789
<SALES>                                        490,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               490,069
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               184,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,584)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,584)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
REF ID:A63810 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

1

11r. 'enrY 1. ten!!fll 

n...r Mr. tangent 

1ece1;t ot your i.tter ot 7 ,.,b~ JSS5 t. aomov~. 

l - ~ 10UX' ~ ~ '° OQ:t ~l t>iviaioa ~ 

att.utiOli M4....,. Nk.e¢ thea w at• Ua.r vnat happent u 

a ftltult ~ theil" e:am1m't10ll ot it.. t • g;Ql.ug to be~ 

trir #ffral. week.e \!ut rou 'a¥ ptX"hapt beu" d.!.reotl1' tfQm 

thft lliitf'oro rq return. 

ttwmldQi ;rou tar Mndtns • ~ tlirectot71 % •, 

~Nq, 

I 

I 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

', I 

'.1 

I 

, I 

I ' 

\ 

\ 

,, 

i .. 

\ 

" \\ 

\ 

\.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 154

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-16-205

PATRICIA GARRETT

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN SERVICES

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered April 7, 2016

MOTION FOR OUT OF TIME

APPEAL AND FOR RULE ON

CLERK

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Patricia Garrett, by and through her attorney, Valerie L. Goudie, brings this

motion for belated appeal. Garrett seeks to appeal the order terminating her parental rights,

which was entered on November 9, 2015. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-

9(b)(1), in dependency-neglect cases, the notice of appeal must be filed within twenty-one

days following the entry of the order from which the appeal is being taken. Therefore, the

notice of appeal was due no later than November 30, 2015; however, it was not filed until

January 8, 2016. Goudie filed a motion for new trial on November 18, 2015, and she states

that it was her mistaken belief that the filing of a motion for new trial extends the deadline

for filing a notice of appeal by thirty days from the deemed-denied date. 

The express purpose of Rule 6-9(b) is to expedite the appellate process in

dependency-neglect cases. See, e.g., Ratliff v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 371 Ark. 534, 268

S.W.3d 322 (2007) (per curiam). Although Rule 4(b)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate

Procedure–Civil allows the deadline for a notice of appeal to be extended when certain
Cite as 2016 Ark. 154

posttrial motions have been filed, we have held that we will not extend that rule to

dependency-neglect cases because doing so would vitiate the purpose of Rule 6-9(b). Id.,

268 S.W.3d 322. Goudie admits that she erred in failing to file a timely notice of appeal.

When an attorney candidly admits fault for failing to perfect an appeal, we will grant the

motion for belated appeal, and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee

on Professional Conduct. See McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and forward a copy of this opinion to the Committee.

Motion granted. 

WOOD, J., not participating.

Valerie L. Goudie, for appellant.

No response.

2
REF ID:A66291 

Protesaor Jay w. Forrester 

Lincoln laboratory .Musachusette Institute ot TechnolOQ' 

P.O .. lox 390 

Ce.!ubr1dge 391 Maasachusette 

Dear Prof'eaeor J'orreaters 

17 February 1954 

~e Director, Jrat1oml Security Agency, baa Wormed me 

that JOU have accepted hie nom1mt1on to membership cm. the 

lUectronj.ce P1mel ot the Ko.t:lonal Security Agency 8eientU'1c 

MvilOX'f JJoe.rd. (ISASA:S}. Aa Cbairmn of the !ISASAB,, I vould 

like to express my tba.nk& to:r )'Our ready acceptance ot the 

1¥,)Q' nation • 

.Although tbe :neettz.g ot the lk>aJ:'d. which wiaa referred to in 

the Director'• l.Mt letter to ~ bas oot yet been held, there 

are certain areae 1n which panel action can J:JOW' be initiated. 

Specil'ical]¥1 ve intend to .a a apec1al. ·~ ot certain t,ypea 

or pner&l. pul'pOff tlexible ~ic equipmnt. Such eQ,.Uipnaent 

la ~ 1n the ~111 ot various devices d 4trect coxacern 

to the >,aeney, and. 1t t. telt that we can ake a genuine contribu· 

tton to thi• ettort. I 

It 1a hq;>e4 that Mr. 8. w, Dwi~ll, Mr. John Hovard, 

Mr. J. Deach, Dr. Claude Shannon, &Dd ;youraelt, all panel membera, 

¥111 be able to &tvote aone ertort to tb11 1tud;y. Mr. John C. 

McPberaon,, Vice Preaic!ent, International. bineaa Me.chines Corpora• 

t1an, '90 Ma4Uon Avenue, llev York 221 lfew YOX'k, tm4. Cba1rnan at 

our Electroi.iica Panel, hae accepted the cbai1!"DBllllhlp ot thie srouP. 

It )'OU V1ll adviH me ot your probable availability in the 

nuonab:ty near tutu.re for thla effort, l ¥111 Worm Mr .. McPherson, 

vbo can then conter with you on the .-tep• mce•aar.Y to 1n1t1ate such 

& atud,y. 

IT.IN.AR~ a. CAIMS 

Cbainen 

EA leielltific M.v1aary Board 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 08-06-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
|       (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:  May      20, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Nicholas J.      Malino |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Nicholas      J. Malino          |   |
|                               |   | Chief      Executive Officer     |   |
|                               |   |                             |   |
./ 

l. e>pmtas ot Cmt.--oe b7 Dl.nctor, EA. 

2. --i.11 IJla4uo:fmBnti&h.mJi9jepti~m~6=~~~~~) USC 3605 

3. Selectic:a ot Cba1zma ot the aaat.eace. 

4. 

5. Ag·n-t .. to t.1llt tim aD4 place ot tba tint wtuaa ot 

tha ccmtereea. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

TOP SECRET
99-338.

#### Sharon Ent., Inc. v. Kenworth of Cincinnati, Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-971109. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 1480, 709 N.E.2d 851. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C. J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 11, 2015

No. 04-14-00656-CV

IN RE FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF TEXAS, LLC, 

A Texas Limited Liability Company

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On September 18, 2014, relator filed its petition for writ of mandamus. On November 24, 

2014, this court issued an order abating the mandamus proceeding for the parties to participate in 

mediation. On February 17, 2015, the real party in interest filed a motion seeking to lift the 

abatement, dismiss the mandamus proceeding as moot, and direct the trial court to set the 

underlying matter for trial. In response to this court’s order, the relator filed a response to the 

motion on February 26, 2015.

The real party in interest’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. This court’s prior 

abatement of this original proceeding is LIFTED. The respondent and the real party in 

interest may file any further response to the merits of relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court no later than March 24, 2015. Any such response must conform to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. All other relief requested by the real party in interest’s 

motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on March 11, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 391473, styled 2444 Babcock, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership v. Family 

Dollar Stores of Texas, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, pending in the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable David J. Rodriguez presiding.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1249

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM100AD

777-57 A0064 --- 3/26/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained In the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 pm., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Fonn Date: 03/0512008