alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROTHBARTH et al., Respondents, v. HERZFELD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Martin Rothbarth and others against Felix Herzfeld and others. B. Naumberg, for appellants. B. N. Cardozo, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.' See, also, 143 App. Div. 934, 128 N. Y. Supp. 1144,
Exhibit 10(f)  


VIACOM INC.



RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS  


(As
amended and restated as of October 14, 2003) 


        1.    Amount of Benefits.    Each eligible non-employee director (as defined herein) will receive annual
payments equal to 100% of the annual retainer for membership on the Board of Directors of Viacom Inc. (the "Board of Directors") in effect on May 21, 2003, the date on which the accrual
of additional benefits under the Plan was terminated by the Board of Directors. Eligible non-employee directors serving on the Board of Directors when the Plan was established in 1989 will
receive credit for all years of service prior to 1989. 



        2.    Payment of Benefits.    Benefits will be payable for a period equal to the director's number of years of service
as an eligible non-employee director as of May 21, 2003. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to those eligible non-employee directors serving on the Board of
Directors as of October 14, 2003 (the "Plan Participants"), the net present value of the accrued retirement benefits as of May 21, 2003 shall: (a) be paid in a lump sum in cash to
those Plan Participants who are age 70 and older as of October 14, 2003 and (b) be credited to the deferred compensation accounts established under Viacom's Deferred Compensation Plan
for Non-Employee Directors (the "Deferred Compensation Plan") for those Plan Participants who are under age 70 as of October 14, 2003. 



        3.    Timing of Payment.    Benefit payments will commence one year after the director's retirement from the Board of
Directors, except in the case of the Plan Participants, who will instead receive their respective payments or credits as soon as practicable after October 14, 2003. Benefits are paid to the
director or, in the event of the director's death, to his estate or designated beneficiary. 


        4.    Eligibility.    To be considered an "eligible non-employee director" under this Plan, a director
must satisfy the three requirements set fort below. 



	(a)
	Non-Employee Status.    The director is not an employee of Viacom Inc., National Amusements, Inc.
or any of their respective subsidiaries; and



	(b)
	Minimum Service.    The director served on the Board of Directors for at least three years; and



	(c)
	Date of Appointment or Election to the Board.    The director was appointed or elected to the Board of Directors before
January 1, 1999.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31092

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAQUIRRO T. SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CR-105-1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jaquirro T. Scott has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Scott has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-31092 Document: 00515404852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
No. 18-31092

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-31092 Document: 00515404852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
EXHIBIT 11

                          COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION

                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                      FOR THE PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30

                                  Primary earnings      Fully diluted earnings
                                     per share                per share

                                  Nine      Three          Nine      Three
                                 months     months        months     months
                                --------   --------      --------   --------
                                   (in millions, except per share amounts)

                                                     1996
                                                     ----
Shares:
 Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding               268.8      270.1         268.8      270.1
 Incremental shares attributed
  to outstanding options             8.3        8.3          10.0        9.0
                                --------   --------      --------   --------
                                   277.1      278.4         278.8      279.1
                                ========   ========      ========   ========


Earnings:
 Net income                     $    851   $    350      $    851   $    350
                                ========   ========      ========   ========


Earnings per common and common
 equivalent share               $   3.07   $   1.26      $   3.05   $   1.25
                                ========   ========      ========   ========




                                                     1995
                                                     ----
Shares:
 Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding               263.2      265.3         263.2      265.3
 Incremental shares attributed
  to outstanding options             9.6        9.9          11.3        9.9
                                --------   --------      --------   --------
                                   272.8      275.2         274.5      275.2
                                ========   ========      ========   ========


Earnings:
 Net income                     $    707   $    245      $    707   $    245
                                ========   ========      ========   ========


Earnings per common and common
 equivalent share               $   2.59   $   0.89      $   2.57   $   0.89
                                ========   ========      ========   ========
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of ELXSI Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company 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 materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: August 14, 2003                 /s/ DAVID M. DOOLITTLE
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       David M. Doolittle
                                       Chief Financial Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ELXSI Corporation and will be retained by ELXSI Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BENNIE KENNEDY, )

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-125-JVB-JEM 

) 

PRAIRIE STATE COLLEGE, et al., ) 

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff has filed a number of documents titled

“Notice of Pleading Filed in a Related Case” [DE 80, 81, and 82] attaching documents originally

filed in another case.

Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 40-1 provides that “[a] party must file a notice of

related action as soon as it appears that the party’s case and another pending case: (1) arise out of

the same transaction or occurrence; (2) involve the same property; or (3) involve the validity or

infringement of the same patent, trademark, or copyright.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 40-1(d). No such notice

has been filed in this case or in the 2012 case referred to by Plaintiff, and the Court notes that

judgment has been entered in that case, with the judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit. To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate a closed case, or that there

are concerns about payment of the sanctions awarded to Defendants in the 2012 case and affirmed

by the Seventh Circuit, those issues should be addressed in the appropriate forum. If Plaintiff wishes

to file a notice of related action, he must identify the case(s) he believes to be related and why, and,

if the cases are indeed related, the later-filed cases will be transferred to the judge handling the

earlier-filed case in accordance with local Rule 40-1(e). Furthermore, even if the cases are related,

documents should not be filed in multiple cases unless so ordered by the Court in its ruling on a

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00125-JVB-JEM document 83 filed 10/04/19 page 1 of 2
Motion for Consolidation under Local Rule 42-2.

Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES the documents and attachments at [DE 80, 81, 82].

SO ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2019.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All counsel of record

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00125-JVB-JEM document 83 filed 10/04/19 page 2 of 2
#### BREW, Respondent, v. BRISTOL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Emily A. Brew against George W. Bristol.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of

Chief Executive Officer

of Wyndham International, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of Wyndham International, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, Fred J. Kleisner, Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:    November 13, 2003.



/s/    Fred J. KleisnerName:    Fred J. Kleisner




Subscribed and sworn to before
me this 13th day of November 2003.



|/s/    Camaleta M. Roseman
|--------------------------
|Name:                     
|Title:                    



My commission expires: 05-24-04



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and
will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-34.6
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1500
191 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303-1943
USA

Tel: +1 404 220 1500
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of
LNR Partners Inc.
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners Inc. (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Asserting Party served as special servicer, that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
229.1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(C), (3)(i)(D), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v),
(4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii) and (4)(xv), which management
has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company
with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included
in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 22, 2008


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
[No. 21366-4-II.

Division Two.

September 19, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William H. Swift, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 96-1-00298-7, F. Mark McCauley, J., entered October 14, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Morgan and Seinfeld, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1788 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1788

           To suspend temporarily the duty on propyl gallate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

 Mr. Jenkins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on propyl gallate.

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

SECTION 1. PROPYL GALLATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.04.52      Benzoic acid 3,4,5- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         trihydroxy-,                                                       31/2008
                         propyl ester (CAS
                         No. 121-79-9)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2918.29.75)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1991 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1991

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty with respect to Diclofop 
                                methyl.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

  Mr. Hastings of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty with respect to Diclofop 
                                methyl.

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

SECTION 1. DICLOFOP METHYL.

    (a) In General.--Subheading 9902.30.16 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bonnie SULLIVAN; John Sullivan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OREGON FORD, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-3673.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: March 6, 2009.

Decided and Filed: March 12, 2009.

ARGUED: Robert B. Thompson, Harrington, Thompson, Acker & Harrington, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants. Andrew J. Ayers, Bahret & Associates Co., Holland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert B. Thompson, Laurence C. Acker, Harrington, Thompson, Acker & Harrington, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants. Andrew J. Ayers, Robert J. Bahret, Bahret & Associates Co., Holland, Ohio, for Appel-lee.

Before KENNEDY, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

COLE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Bonnie and John Sullivan (the “Sullivans”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Oregon Ford, Inc., d/b/a Mathews Ford Oregon (“Mathews Ford”) on their claims for damages arising out of a slip-and-fall incident at Mathews Ford on June 27, 2005. The Sullivans allege that Mathews Ford breached its duty to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Mathews Ford moved for and the district court granted summary judgment because the Sullivans failed to show that Mathews Ford was responsible for the alleged hazard and failed to produce evidence that the hazard existed for a sufficient length of time to provide constructive notice. *See Sullivan v. Oregon Ford, Inc.,*552 F.Supp.2d 681 (N.D.Ohio 2008).

This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. *Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp.,*556 F.3d 502, 511 (6th Cir.2009) (citing *Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts,*448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir.2006)). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); *see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We view factual evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. *See Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch.,*469 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir.2006).

We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Mathews Ford. We agree that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because the district court’s decision is well-reasoned, we need not expand on its analysis. Therefore, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment to Mathews Ford for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board
of Directors
MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-138744 and No. 333-142358), Post Effective Amendment No. 4 on
Form S-3 (No. 333-133439), and on Form S-8 (No. 333-91120) of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. of our report dated June 17, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive income, changes in capital and cash flows of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2006,
annual report on Form 10-K/A of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Denver,
Colorado
November 2, 2007

---



QuickLinks