alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,411
<INVENTORY>                                    202,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               237,494
<PP&E>                                          16,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 294,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            42
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   294,419
<SALES>                                      1,458,047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,458,783
<CGS>                                        1,401,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,435,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               269,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,199
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84


</TABLE>
ii .. - _, -f - .... . ... ,. -

-- -- - . ·- -

..... - 'II.,,; .. • fpf: - - ~, • .. .-

• ,,.,, ... -"' ., ... ·~ •• :t' ....... ;.._·;;"""" ..... - ·-.-....... _- .... 1.-s- .. -- ... i:-~ ...... , ...... ,_Jo ... 

• , .. l'.t.6'.• "' .. - • " • ··~· ·' .. .!.".. -~·-5· ...c_ .......... • ' ... --: .. ,,.' ~ •• ~-:- ~- .. : .. "" ·~. _. ... '··~ .. --

--... - ·' -·---- -·llF-TD-·-A.641 ]:.-~ -·'!:- ~ ... _ ~~ • .-. -~- ... t-.'I.. ~:_""', - ...... - -- -· ---- -~--!e'" .. ~ • -·~•_;.,=~ ... --~- - ....... _ .. - .. " .,. ..... ,. ......... .,,. _··. 

ROTilo h!ldleton Oliver, Ph11D1 

701 Ohio Street 

Urbana, Ill1uo1• 

Dear Dr. Oliveri 

. . --.. •a·•• .,_~.! "'*'2'~ 

310 Second Street, S,E, 

Va1h!ngton 31 D. C. 

14. October 1954 

I can't tell you hav pJ.ee.sed % vae to receive :rour letter, 

'With its 1ntere1ti!JI and moat welcam inaloaure. 'lhe little op, 

while it. .,.,. llOt be rare, i• certainly not to be found in Jl8tl¥ 

libra.riea Qi"' colleotiona. tt does &ppear, hoVe'Y'•; 1h Dr. Galland'• 

excellent vork, kl historical and iCal. bibli ot ti. 

li ~ture or c pub •bed ~ 5 by he ltorthnate:rn 

:verait¥ Preae. 

s_v the way, the J.ate J).f .. O.lland va1 brotber-in ... lav to 1>%' .. l9Urton Mill:tpn, one ot ;your colleagwta, no doubt, in the De:pa.rtnent 

or Engli•h at Urbana. Do you kZ3ov him! It llO.t please give h1m. .. ueetiag and tell him I hope our book on Sbakeapean-lacon er,ypto ... era~ will soon ba publiahed. b Cambridge Univer•1t:r Preas 1• 

1ntere•ted. Dr. MiU:tpn ~ be intere1'kd bee&ue we made good 

uae or Dr. Galland.'• 'W\l'Aibliahed bibllograpby ot 1wu on the 

m.ke1tpeal'&-Bacon Con.troverq. It w.e through Dr. Milligan'• 

courten11 that ;t received. a carbon cow ot the 1BDU1Jetr1pb ot tba 

b:lbliogra.pbf. 

1'J' all meama look • up the next 1;1- ;you coma thia 'Wll.Y. 

It VOUl.d indeed. be a pleawre to :reQW acquaintance. We bought and 

re•tored an old hc>wt• :ript near the Librar,y ot Congrea1 and the 

roJ.ger Sbake1peare Library. l bave a wq nice •tud1' 1n our new 

hone in Which rq colleation occupies the moat p."Ollli•nt place. ln ... c1.dantall¥ 1 the coU.at1on i• bequeathed., in Jq late•t will, to the 

Library ot Congreu. 

We -.re S.nw:reated in reoru1tiJJg people or a certain 'f:n*·-

ao la't me 1maW of &IQ' like~ proapects you 1IA1' have 1n min4.. 

'1'hank1Wl8 10u wrr muah tor ~ tiiae aontribution to m,y collection, and With cordial cr-etinga, I u., 

Sincere~, 

WILLIAM 7. r.RDIIWI 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-16-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
#### Kimberly Chambers, Appellant, v James P. McIntyre, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 530]

In an action to rescind a separation agreement, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered December 19, 2002, which, upon a decision of the same court dated May 9, 2002, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While an appellate court’s authority in reviewing a determination after a nonjury trial is as broad as that of the trial court, due deference is given to the trial court’s determination *(see Mechwart v Mechwart,*292 AD2d 354 [2002]; *DiBruno v Abrams,*208 AD2d 672, 674 [1994]). Such a determination should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is unsupported by legally sufficient evidence or could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see A & S Trucking Serv. v New York State Thruway Auth.,*268 AD2d 493 [2000]; *Greenberg v Behlen,*220 AD2d 720 [1995]).

*345Here, there was sufficient evidence demonstrating that the separation agreement entered into by the parties was arrived at fairly and equitably, and in a manner that was free from the taint of fraud and duress *(see Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63 [1977]). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, it was not the defendant’s burden to prove that the agreement was fair and reasonable, but rather, it was her burden to show that the agreement was the result of fraud or overreaching, or that its terms were unconscionable *(see Jacobs v Jacobs,*234 AD2d 425 [1996]; *Wilutis v Wilutis,*184 AD2d 639 [1992]). Since the plaintiff failed to meet her burden, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint seeking to rescind the separation agreement.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
REF ID:A68782 

~· OS52 

.. I JUN 195! 

Cd~?Plli·•, •. ~tU.t • SIC:Ul!tf 'fif!P,3r!!A!f3N 1 t .... l I I 1 f If 

- . . 'tilt .... Chief, Al'IQ' s.tM'ity t.ce~ 

The-~ 

Attl'lt OA!-U 

l. "Ir. ":Friadun, who acc!npaniecl nz.. I.a. T .. 1'~. ~-on, 9,1.oe 1· 

. e~ (>f i;h• aeu.arah ~ O.Vel.opMnt B0111"4 ad his ae&istant 

J>h". Dean Post.t 01t • 1US.\ w US!~ hu ~ \bat \ht": t.oar -va 1'~111td, ~~ °*~ a.1111 quite w ... u. .... 

2. Ii ia iJllei:NC\ to 1!¥11cato wr ~t.1.on ct the ~ 

tunit7 ~ ttJ~,)~l nr. 't~son w~t. a J.ar:;" 1nWoept •tl.t.U.on looka 

Uke,, vhat. it dou1 and how !t is ~ted.. It. vUl be ~iaW 

U' _1(N..tdll C->iweT...,. tbanlr.a to a.U \if.'..i.") !-.de the "f'ird:t. to ple&181lta 

a!ld i:>ntitabl.tt. 

cc: AG fflll c/s· i.._,.,__. .. ~ 

_S/ASST. 

M/Rz Selt-m:planato17. 

~. F. Frle<Jzrran/S/Asst/6o493/26 Mq S3-eby" 

. Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-01-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
,.QR\S ,HAG ELIN 

REF iQ: A22_,633_!31 

~k~llcl<, 1 /Vl~~ 

, - . 

• T 

- • ". "~ r"' 

" ~;.'it. '"~r, 

~· i o . 'r Lt· ii.ii. ii-~.. ~~~ 

~ (h,ll, 

~~~hr~,~~. 

~ ~"'- ~ ~ ~~~~ 

~~~~·~~r~ 

ot ~c~ OiAA<~~~ fJ.r 2i~ 

':J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tu~~~~~~!!!!!!! 

.:(:; Pa. ~; J ~ riA- ~~~~ 

&L ~ ~.~ _rt.u.e.- ~ ~ 

~ ~ 1 (..,1ke.,/l./lfit- ~ 

~ ~ -ex~-~. ~ ~ 1- ~ 

~~~ ~tt4ai< ~. 

cu ~ ;fMe ~~ : ~ c,. c. (;-f~ 4t ~ cM.ewtc..e.. & ~ea Z / ~ ~ 

~~~~4! ~ ~ ~.,, 

~~d. .&--~ ~~~ ~~ 

'J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~I 

~A aA ~ ~ ~r .c:U!C/vif!-

~~ ~ ~-~ .... PAN\~
REF ID:A66846 .......... .;ia---... • .. . c 

-Office Memorandum 

i SE£11RfJY INffflMT!O# 

• UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

TO .a Consultant DATB: 19 March 1952 

DOM Compt.roller 

.SUBJBCT: CiTW.an Peraomel .ActiOna 

1. Beterance our discuallion 19at91'dq l10QD OD c1Tilian pereormel promticma, 

G or about t.be tim \hat ArSA was tormct, 1111' records 1D re.pect to tbe .lrm7' are 

u tollcnnu .. .. -

a. 

c. 

The attached 111B1Drand1111. OD thia subject, dat.ecl 2 September 1949, 1Dd1-

catea that t.he Chiat, Anq Securit7 .Aganc7, recopised the impl.1catione 

ot nch act.icma. 

A8 JOU;._, remmber, things mond rather sl.owl1' at that. tu.. It vu 

88T81"al.JDDDtba before the question• ot detailed 1'mctiona, perammel 

apacea, and peraormel wre settled. Specitic~, theae matt.era wre 

aolved OD or.about. lS December. 

The Director, Al'SA, recogmsed tbia problem in a letter dated 

31October1949.addreaaed to the Chief, Anq Secur1t7 Aganc7, u wll 

u \o other crntoJ.ogic agenciea, asking that._acticm ~ frozen in reapect to peraonnel and apacea wbich wre destined tor t.ranater to the 

mnf Aganc7. 

2. I 418cuaed tbia •tter with Admiral stane and ·other• ao..tm in October, 

19491 and alt.bough I do not recollect •t a:lmilar act.ion, it aJJ7, ·the Rav,r lJad. 

taken, I feel that the Chief, Arlq' Securit7 Agenc7, anticipated the Direc\or' a desires wll 1D advance ~ at a .. tillla .. cert;aiJ.rlq ippropriate in respect . to t.he .:Low 

dnelopmant in the fol"lll&tion ot the nev Agenc7. 

Incloaure - 1 

C1Til.1an Peraomel Actions, 

CSGAS, 2 ~ptember ~949 

PAUC t. IEFF 

Aclinl ComP"Gllel 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
~ 

• 

CS GAS · 2 SEP 1949 

l,. Caatind.ng our put dlecusaiona on pel"lonnel act.tom, it ia 

oonatcltnd 84•1.sable VIL t, in Yin ot the pending AF...J\ organ1&1'1on, 

~ 

\be ...,,.,....,.._ carefully \ha eawbl1abl9n~ et addi Uonal poe1t1ona, 

-\hole 1Jl \be higher gradee. 

a. Pant..oular concem 1• felt in regard to requeata for reol.ul1ti•'\10nl which will result in a promotional aotion. Coneequen\q1 

all aoticsae -•aard \o •at.abll•tment of poe1Uou ot P-3 and aboYe, 

will be .ubld\'94 'Go tbta oti"'ice tor approw.l. Juat1tica"t1on W.S.U be 

a\tfaobed arid will •~if1Giilly 1nolude a state.an\ trom the opera\iJll 

etftoial ~e to wbe~a 

a. Inouabent has been pertormlag the additional Nepomtbili tiu 

and, U ao, for bow loaa• 

b. An wgan1a\1onal change 1a involved ill the reolu•it1.Uoa. 

o. Under ni..ting plau, • poai'loa tn the h1glwr grade oaa 

&>e accomodatecl b-7 ~ natdual !SA. or AFSI.,, ae appropriate. 

3. In ordv '9 11111 t the nUJlber or requests fore reclass1.t1•'10NI, 

07 otficiala ehoild be intol'Md ot the abOYe requiNMD._ &Ad tta.\1 

un\11 AYSA orgaoi?\1.on 18 decided, eatabU.hllent ot h1Cfl-O'*d• pos!ticma 

will no' be appro'V'ed unlet..a .. n overall eooDOllly can be shown, o.r ualeaa 

•Ji ou'\e\anding ~ity would otherwiee be perpetuated. 

PAUL E. NEF1 .....,..,_':. 

Assistant Deputy Qhief 

~~my security Agency 

~~ 

~ Inclosure with OOF Of'tice Neaorandum ot 19 ·&P. ~;i .I ~ ' • ' 

MM"& efst 

I 

,1
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 7530 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 257

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### SB Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 8 $ 680.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 680



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analys is ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant reg ulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Expla nation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No an swer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
JAGP 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARI! 

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

F!:B 25 1953 

SUBJECTa H. R. 1152, 8.3rd Congress, lat Session, a Bill "For the 

Relief of William F. Friedman• 

TOa Director, lational Security Agency 

Washington 25, D. c. 

An'Ba 3024 

1. Reterence is -.de to letter f'ltf8 thia office to your 

agenc7 datic! 20 Deoeaber 1951 and reply indorsement thereto dated 

29 Februar.r 1952 with reference to B. R. 5728, 82Dd Congress, lat Session, and S 228.3, 82nd Congress, lat Session, both tor the 

relier of William F. Friedll&llo 

2. :e,. letter dated .30 January 195.3 the Honorable Cbanee7 w. 

Reed, Chairman or the Ho1111e Committee on the Judiciar7, baa requested 

a report f'roa the Secretary ot the A.rrq on aubject bill, H. R. 1152 

(copy herewith). Since the bill 18 in all respects similar to 

those introduced in the 82nd Congreae, tor which the report to the 

Houae Committee troa the Secretary or the Ano' was delqed b7 a 

request f'or further inf'ormation trm the Bureau or the Badget, it 

is •rely desired to receive from you a confirmation or 7our pre- viou opinion as expressed in your indorseaent of' 29 February 1952 

(Serial 369), or it your views have changed, an expression or your 

new views together with the reasons therefor • 

.3. In order to bring oar records up to date, llr. Friedllaa'• 

current eaplo;yaent title and his salary should be inclu4ed in 70ur 

reply, together with dates ot changes, it &81'• 

4. In view of' the desirability of' proapt action your repl.1' hereto should be t\1l'Dished at the earliest practiAble date. 

FOR THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAJ.a 

1 !Dela 

C7 bill H.R. 1152 

/•I George F. Weateru.a 

GEORGE Fo 'IESTERllAI 

llajer, JAGG 

Chier, Patent• Divi•ioa 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 08-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
#### Boyd, Respondent, vs. The Western Paving & Supply Company, imp., Appellant.

*April 8*

*April 30, 1897.*

*Wells v. Western Paving & Supply Go., ante,*pi 116, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. Johnson, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Iloyt, Ogden &*Olwell, and oral argument by *F. M. Hoyt.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Howard da Mal*lory, and oral argument by *Samuel Howard*and *R. B. Mallory.*

Maeshall, J.

The questions presented in this case are the same as those decided in *Wells v. Western Paving & Supply Co.,*ante, p. 116. That case rules this.

*By the Oourt.*— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  August 7, 2006
    /s/ Stephen C. JumperStephen C. JumperPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United states District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-4036

___________ Connecticut Indemnity Company, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Harris Transport Company, * *

Defendant-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Mitchell Hogan; Ralph C. Hogan, * Western District of Arkansas. * Defendants, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Vanliner Insurance Company, * * Defendant-Appellant, * * Dorothy Ella (Dot) Thomas, * Personal Representative estate * of Kenneth Thomas, * * Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 20, 1997 Filed: March 14, 1997

_____________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Ha rris Transport Company and Vanliner Insurance Company appeal th e distr ictcourt's grant of summary judgment to Connecticut Indemnit y 1 Company in this declaratory judgment action. After de

### -2-

novo r eview, we believe the district court's decision was correct
. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C.,                           ( print page 11459)                        as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Loan Repayment Program (LRP) Clinical (L30) and Pediatric (L40) applications.                    

*Date:*                         April 2, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, DEA/SRB/NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 668, Bethesda, MD 20892-4878, 301-451-2405,                         *henriquv@nidcr.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: February 25, 2015.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-04322 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Ellis, Appellant, vs. City of Ashland and others, Respondents.

*March 26*

April *17, 1903.*

*Appeal: Orders: Record: Review.*

On appeal from an order, the record as transmitted contained a number of affidavits presumably in opposition to the motion, but the order itself failed to specify any of the papers on which the motion was heard, and the clerk’s certificate stated merely that the papers transmitted were “all the original papers on file.” *Reid,*that the order could not be reviewed.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Ashland county: JohN K. Paeish, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Tbe appeal is by tbe plaintiff from an order denying a motion for an injunction *pendente lite.*

Eor tbe appellant there was a brief by *Tomkins & Tom-kins,*and oral argument by *W. M. Tomkins.*

Eor tbe respondents there were briefs by *Geo. F. Merrill,*.attorney, and *Frank M. Hoyt,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Hoyt.*

Dodge, J.

Tbe order merely recites that tbe plaintiff’s •order to show cause came on to be beard. That was based •solely on tbe complaint. Tbe record as transmitted contains a number of affidavits presumably in opposition to tbe application. Tbe order, however, fails to specify any of tbe papers -on which tbe motion was beard, and tbe certificate of tbe *576clerk of court declares merely tbat tbe papers transmitted are “all tbe original papers on file.” Hence we are not certified by tbe order or certificate, or by both together, tbat any of tbe affidavits appearing in tbe record were used upon tbe motion, nor tbat there may not have been others. Upon such a record we cannot review tbe order. *Tenney v. Madison,*99 Wis. 539, 75 N. W. 979; *Superior C. L. Co. v. Superior,*104 Wis. 463, 80 N. W. 739; *Glassbrenner v.*Groulik, 110 Wis. 402, 85 N. W. 962.

*By the Gourt.*— Appeal dismissed.
PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Dear Mr. lll.ngens 

REF ID:A65011 

310 Second Street, S.B. 

Washington 3, D. c. 

29 June 1954 

Some dlcy" IOO.Ybe I can t1nd an extra copy ot the addendum 

to rrry article on !!&ar Allan Poe and 1•11 send it to you. It is m::ire intereatiz:ig than the 'be.sic article - but 1t i• so 

rare that ttm. not sure I can dig up a. cagy. 

You have no doubt found b;y this time that collecting old 

items on cryptography 18 rather expensive. I ate.rted a good 

many yeart ago but I v1ah no11 I had started 1one; before that. 

I Vieh ¥OU l.Uck on your torthcoming volume on cey:ptography. When it 11 published t•u send you 1113' copy for 

autographing. 

Ki'•. Friedman ret1red :from the active practice right after V-J Day, 8Ecy1ng she'd ba.d. ~nough? 

Sincerely~ 

WILLIAM F. FRDllWf 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-18-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

~--=-~- _--l 

\ ~ 

\' 

-- \ '
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of
our report dated March 15, 1999 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedules included in Item 27 (a) of this Form S-1 of
Digitas Inc., which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to
the references to us under the headings "Experts" and "Selected Financial
Data" in such Registration Statement.

   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

   Boston, Massachusetts
   December 23, 1999