alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State ex rel. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company vs. The Oshkosh, Algoma & Black Wolf Railroad Company.

*September 20*

October *11, 1898.*

*Appealable order: Railroads: Eminent domain:*Certiorari.

*i.*An order appointing commissioners of appraisal in a proceeding to condemn land for a railroad right of way, is a final order made by the court in a special proceeding, and hence appealable.

dJ. The question whether the petitioner in such a case was a railroad corporation, within the meaning of the statute authorizing condemnation, and had the right of eminent domain, may properly be determined on an appeal from the order appointing commissioners; and the remedy by appeal being adequate for that purpose, *certio-rari*will not lie.

*539Certiorari to review proceedings of the circuit court for "Winnebago county: Geo. W. Burnell, Circuit Judge. The respondent moved to quash the writ.

*Motion grunted.*

*Geo. H.*Noyes, for the motion.

In opposition there was a brief by *Fish, Gary, Upham & Black,*and oral argument by *J. T. Fish.*

The motion was granted October 11, 1898, and the following opinion was filed November 22, 1898:

Winslow, J.

The *Oshkosh, Algoma & Black Wolf Railroad Company*is a corporation organized for the purpose of constructing and operating a railroad for the purpose of carrying persons only from a point within the limits of the city of Oshkosh, through the towns of Algoma and Black Wolf, to the shore of Lake Winnebago. Desiring to cross the tracks and right of way of the relator, it commenced condemnation proceedings for that purpose in the circuit court by petition. The relator appeared upon the bearing, and, among other objections, raised the objection that the respondent was not a railroad corporation, ivithin the meaning of the law authorizing condemnation, and had not the right of eminent domain. The objections were overruled, and an order made by the court appointing commissioners. Thereupon the relator sued out a writ of *certiorari*from this court, and, after return, the respondent moved to quash the writ.

The motion must be granted. The order in question was a final order made *Jry the court*in a special proceeding, and hence was appealable. *Gill v. M. & L. W. R. Co.*76 Wis. 293; *Wis. Cent. R. Co. v. Cornell University,*49 Wis. 162. Appeal from the order is an entirely adequate remedy to test the question raised by the relator. The general rule is well established that a common-law *certiorari*will not issue where a party has an adequate remedy by appeal. *Wordsworth v. Sibley,*38 Wis. 484; *McCaffrey v. Nolan,*1 Wis. 361; Harris, Certiorari, § 44.

*By the Court.*— Writ quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE METRA
BIOSYSTEMS, INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,709
<SECURITIES>                                    18,876
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,846
<PP&E>                                           4,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,768
<SALES>                                          6,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,725
<CGS>                                            3,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,127)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)
        

</TABLE>
REF ID:A2436197 

TO : Mr. Friedman DATB: 10 June 1952 

FROM Dr. Shaw 

SUBJBCT: UK Familiarity with the ECM Principle 

One evening in July 1951 while I was attending the 1951 COMSEC conference 

in London, I went to dinner with Lt. Col. C. A. Henn-Collins, RSIGS. Over a 

bottle of wine he informed me that during a tour of duty in North Africa in 

about 1942 or 43 he was actively engaged in the maintenance and repair of 

U.S. ECM/SIGABA machines which were in the custody of American forces in North 

Africa. 

SHAW 

Cryptosecurity Branch 

eclassifi ed and approved for release by NSA on 09-26-2013 pursuant 

o E.O. 13526 

IBP Sf CREJ
REF ID:A39537 

•• Paper No. 3 Div. 53 Boom 

A.wr-on1' 

-rllec..mi.ilDaerfll........, 

681/J' 

'DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

AH eommaa!c:atlonll 1'1!8pedlag 11111 

mppllca&lon aboald llfwe lbe serlaf aamber, 

date or lllla11. and-·' 

w ... ...-.o.c .. •• •• _. ... omdll bJ'-

&he appllam& 

VH TS oac; WASHINGTON 

Please llnd beloro a eommunleatlon from the BZAMINBR In 

charge of thla application. ({) _ ~ 

... n-a21 ~Comm1a11onrroJP..,,. Applicant: Wlll1u. Pe Pl-1edr.Jan 

Ser. No. 1<1'/ ,21&4 Filed October 23 1936 

ror - -~ ia11111'031'1l~ ... '°t ..... '!9 

obert V. 1Alugbl1n t: 

Charles A. Rowe 

o/o Ch1et ot ~· A1r Corpe. munt.tlou Blllldlng 

Waabf.ngtall• De Ce 

Reterenoea mcte of NOortlt 

·- -- -::- .. ~, .... ,. _...:.:. "- ... / .... 

--·--· 

In na. ot. 1925 lmob• v2 are omu an4 ID 1>a11m or 

: 

1927 pan• 24a are cama. !he7 are ued. to aotute other 

w>w.nSoal JU't• and 1n theae no patenta tbe7 are the equivalent• 

ot app11oant1 • o- ,02. 'Iha o1alma are Njeoted an the• . paMat• am! alao GD the gZ'Clall4 Gr 1aok Gr invention to move 

the JU't• ot the dnlo• 1111d.oh •tepa the oammtator elaenta at 

the ~ • Debem dnlo•• bJ the - apparatua or either 

Dam 4nloe. 

pproved for Release by NSA on 09-30-2013 pursuant to E.O.
| 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based                on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information                included in this report, fairly present in all material respects                the                financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the                registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The                registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for                establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as                defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant                and have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The                registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our                most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,                to                the registrant’s independent registered public accountants and the audit                committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing                the equivalent functions): |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0541. DIANE PARRIS et al. v. THOMAS COHEN, ADMINISTRATOR

FOR ESTATE FRONICE PRICE.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling in that court, defendants Diane Parris and Darrell Price appealed to

the state court, which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff Thomas Cohen. Parris

and Price then appealed directly to this Court. We lack jurisdiction.

An appeal from a state court order disposing of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga.

App. 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). Parris and Price’s failure to comply with the

required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/04/2016

November 04, 2016
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David W.
Froesel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Omnicare,
Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
| | 1.       The
 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September
 30, 2009 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                          

Date: November 5, 2009

| |                            | 
| | -------------------------- | 
| | /s/ David W. Froesel, Jr.  | 
| | David W.
 Froesel, Jr.    
| | Senior Vice
 President and
| | Chief
 Financial Officer  

---
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1394 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 35 ) ll-C- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/3/20087:52:00AM

Sheet 35of 56a aa a ea

t I » **3 Tr3 > D FA XCOMMUNICATION P. 2 

### A-94-5 2

Date : FROM : £ - 2 8-? 3

T?ISA V ^ TZ P-oLL.

TO : PACIFI C ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES , INC . 500 1 Sout hMiam i Blvd. , Suit e 30 0 Pos t Offic e Box1207 7 Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 27709-207 7 (919 ) 941-033 3 FA XNUMBER : (919 ) 941-023 4 Name : Address : Phon e Number : Ljpey /rlt-°iz£. F(&£Z.C~A<ZT *>A*I (> ^PfrttJbS 

### Oic

FA X NUMBER : 

## ?/fr - 2-Y5-75£ 4

REFERENC E CODE : 

### A/02I THI S COMMUNICATION

COMPRISE S 

# I [ f r ; 1 1 r• > «/ «
» • * j ( , 1 ' " •!>.;•.. _ PAGE S INCLUDIN G THI S PAGE . 

# L v e/^ 10* 

### P/iaceSS 9^ ' 

## U

"ASO-U*. p<p/*j-£ s «=/ . -^<*i* i 7V ©

/S 

# /li*~^r (D^< ^ (L*
HEADQUARTERS 

ARMY SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

WDGSS-80 22 May 1946 

SUBJECT i Work Load ot the Maintenance Branch 

TO: Deputy Chief 

Army Security Agency 

l. The inclosed report from the Maintenance Branch (WDGSS-85), prepared at my request, summarizes the work load or the Maintenance Branch 

and reveals the startling tact that, with the present personnel strength, 

it will require twenty-nine years to complete the rehabilitation program 

of SIGABA, SIGCUM, SIGNIN, SIGIVI, and SIGAMUG, which are on hand as of 

l May 1946. 

2. Paragraph 9 or the study recommends that the Maintenance Branch 

be authorized to increase the number or cryptographic repairmen from 

tw'enty to one hundred. The recommendation or a maximum or one hundred 

persons was governed by the presently available shop space. 

J. The Chief, Mainte~ce Branch is making unofficial contact with 

The Teletype Corporation in order to determine the possibility or their 

accepting a contract for the rehabilitation of this equipment. However, 

it is not considered probable that this Corporation will be interested. in 

such a project. 

4. In view of the tact that the equipments mentioned. in paragraph l 

above constitute the bulk of our high-level, secure, cryptographic mechanisms, and that there is no indication at present that such mechanisms 

will be declared. obsolete tor a number of years, it is considered essential that consideration be given to their rehabilitation in a much shorter 

period than twenty-nine years. It is therefore requested. that favorable 

consideration be given to the requested increases in the number or cryptographic repairmen. Any suggestions as to other means or easing this 

difficult situation will be welcomed by the Security Division. 

1 Incl 

Ltr from .Maintenance Br, 

15 May 46, subj as above, w/l incl 

ff- 1/.Ud 

H. L. CLARK 

Lt. Colonel; Signal Corps 

Assistant Chier, Security Division 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-16-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 

CONFIDENTIAL
#### Dorothy, Appellant, vs. Richmond, Respondent.

*September 27*

*October 12, 1900.*

*Appeals from justice's court: Trials*de novo: *Review of orders of justice of the peace.*

Where a plaintiff has appealed from a final judgment rendered in justice’s court, dismissing the action for noncompliance with an order requiring security for costs, and made the affidavit entitling him to a new trial, the filing of the record irrthe circuit court gives pendency to the action in that court, where it is entitled to a trial on the merits, and the propriety or impropriety of the justice’s action in ordering security for costs, or dismissing the action for noncompliance with such order, is not the subject of review.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Polk county : A. J. Yinje, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

Plaintiff sued defendant in justice’s court upon a contract ■demand of $100. Upon appearance of the parties, security •for costs was demanded, and ordered by the justice, and peremptorily refused by the plaintiff, whereupon the action was dismissed. Plaintiff, within the time limited by law, .gave due notice and affidavit for appeal to the circuit court for Polk county, accompanied by an affidavit for trial *de novo,*in compliance with sec. 3768, Stats. 1898. .At the *653first term after filing the return on said appeal, namely, on the 12th day of September, 1899, with no intermediate steps, of record, an order was entered dismissing the appeal, with $10 costs, from which order the plaintiff appeals.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *H. P. Burdich,*and for the responden t on that of *Hits-P. Haugen.*

Dodge, J.

The case of *Steinam v.*Schulte, 83 Wis. 567, is conclusive of the question here presented. The plaintiff had appealed from a final judgment, and made affidavit entitling him to a new trial, so that the question of the propriety or impropriety of the justice’s action in ordering security for costs, or in dismissing the action for noncompliance therewith, was not the subject of review. Upon the appeal being perfected in the manner prescribed by the statute, the filing of the record in the circuit court gave pendency to the action in that court, where it was entitled to a trial on the merits. The considerations urged by respondent, of hardship to him, are matters for the legislature, but cannot justify disobedience of their behests by the court. If security for costs was-necessary to defendant’s protection, he had an easy remedy, by application to the circuit court, under sec. 2942, Stats. 1898.

*By the*Gourt.— The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Cassoday, O. J., took no part.
97-2432.

#### State ex rel. Griffith v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 96APD11-1543. On request for oral argument. Request denied.
REF ID : A67 61(t 

PETITION 

TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS1 

Your petitioner WSJ11pm P. Pr1e'nltll 

citizen_ of the Un~ed States residing at '1# 'BJ.Rl4i 1l!l1; @! II# .:adt11cton~. and whose post-office addre~~ lC3f!D, !la8 ~t '1MiM•M 25; L C. 

----------....-----pray_£ that Letters Patent may be granted to Ii& for the improvement in __ _ ltlfiiiliit1Citiflb DEVJCI 

set forth in the annexed Specification. 

And ___ l!!....... hereby irrevocably give_ control of bis application 

for Letters Patent to the Secretary of War, and appoint.!.... William D. Hall, 

whose post-office address is care of the Chief Signal Officer, Pentagon Building, 

Washington, D. C., attorney with full power of substitution and revocation tG 

prosecute.. this application, to make alterations and amendments therein, to 

sign Ida name_ to tlie drawings, to receive the Letters Patent, and to 

transact all business in the United States Patent Office connected therewith. 

TO ALL llHOM IT 11AY CONCERN1 

19 a 

- (Sign here /a/ mJiw F. 1dmMD 

(first name in full) f 

• 

SPECIFICATION 

BE IT KNOWN, That __ Wi~~I~1~1~a~mwf.5J•r...!M!;:!m-!!!!!!!!!!"._ ____________ citizen 

or the United States residing at in the County of------

and State of have invented certain new and usefUl improvements in ____________ 1an:_t_lli_~_u_W._.ca __ t;t_~_1.._ _____________________________ __ 

of which the follewing is a specification: 

The invention described herein may be manufactured and used 'h7 or for the 

Government for governmental purposes, without the payment of any royalty thereon0 

24-67424-200 

lA\pproved for Release by NSA on 09-06-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§ 
REF Ip:A67657 • 

II TESTIMOIY WHEREOF I attb: rq lipature. 

""!t111p ,. Me!pm 

(sign here. flrat IUlll9 In l\ili) 

OATH 

\1S)1Scm F. Msc1tm • the abow-:namd petitioner. being 

norn (or ifHrmedJ. Lpoaea ad aaym th&t he ia a oitisen ot the United Stat•• 

of Amria aacl reddent of • 

that he wril7 beliewa himself tO be 'the origLi&l, firat, and aole liwntor oP 

the s..pro,,...t in 111mr.1ffft ft!D 

described and claimed in the annen B;.clOa ons Lt he dOea mt kDOw and &iea 

not belien that the •- waa ever lm01rn or uaed before hi• inftlltion or cliaGOW'l"J 

thereo.t, or patented or described in 111'11' printed publication in my ocnmtry be.tore 

hia inftlltion or diaaonl')' thereat• or lllDN than one 79ar prior to thia application. 

or in publio uae or on aale in the United Statea tor :more than one 79a:r prior to 

thil application1 tihat aaid inwntion haa mt been patented in &11¥ aountey torelgn 

to the United States on an application tiled b7 hill or hia legal repreaentativea 

or &Hign1 more than t•lve month• prior to thia application; and that no applioation 

tor patent on aaid i:mpro'ftPll8Dt baa been tiled b)' him. or his legal repreaenta.tiwa 

or aaaigu in any 0011Dtry foreign to the United States. 

SWORI' to and aubaoribed before • thi1 2.1d 

(SUL) 

(Seal here, to be im.preaeed 

ill paper.) 

(Sign &re. tint name Li tuii) 

da;r ot -•A1111 pmpt.lilll11&--...i• 19 il • 

iotar;r PUbllc 8/28146 

H-818811ABCD
##### 



Exhibit 11
 North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.
 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
 September 30, 2006
(unaudited)
 Three Months Ended
    
    
    Nine Months EndedSeptember 30.
    
    
    September 30.(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Net Income
    
    $
    203,108
    
    
    $
    237,296
    
    
    $
    634,052
    
    
    $
    738,397Common and Common Equivalent Shares:Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding
    
    
    456,100
    
    
    
    470,004
    
    
    
    455,107
    
    
    
    468,644Weighted Average Common Equivalent Shares
    
    
    4,772
    
    
    
    5,623
    
    
    
    4,976
    
    
    
    6,313Weighted Average Common and Common Equivalent Shares
    
    
    460,872
    
    
    
    475,627
    
    
    
    460,083
    
    
    
    474,957Net Income per Common Share  Basic
    
    $
    .45
    
    
    $
    .50
    
    
    $
    1.39
    
    
    $
    1.58Net Income per Common and Common Equivalent Share  Diluted
    
    
    .44
    
    
    
    .50
    
    
    
    1.38
    
    
    
    1.55
 48