alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable William

A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4267

___________

Dennis Campbell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri

Gary Campbell, Regional Director, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 1, 1998

 Filed: September 18, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Campbell appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Western District of Missouri dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), enacted by

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). For reversal, Campbell argues that he did
-2-

not receive notice of the magistrate’s recommendation and that this court should

conclude he exhausted his administrative remedies because he had exhausted

administrative remedies in a prior case. For the reasons discussed below, we modify

the dismissal to be without prejudice and affirm the judgment as modified.

Campbell, an inmate at the Central Missouri Correctional Center, filed a

complaint alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs by not performing corrective eye surgery. The magistrate judge recommended

dismissal because Campbell had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The district

court, adopting the magistrate judge’s report, dismissed the case, but did not specify

whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

As amended by the PLRA, effective April 26, 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,

prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available

are exhausted.” Because Campbell failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the

district court correctly dismissed his case. See Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104

(6th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), petition for cert. filed, No. 97-8990 (U.S. Apr. 28, 1998);

Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1264-66 (10th Cir. 1997). We conclude there is no

need to remand based on Campbell’s alleged failure to receive a copy of the

magistrate’s recommendation, because the outcome would not have been changed by

his objection that he exhausted his administrative remedies in a prior case involving

different defendants at a different prison facility. We believe, however, that under the

circumstances of this case the dismissal should be without prejudice.

Accordingly, we modify the judgment to be without prejudice and affirm the

judgment as modified.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


American Artists Entertainment Corporation
Atlanta, Georgia


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 
2, 1999 relating to the consolidated financial statements of American Artists 
Entertainment Corporation (formerly American Artists Film Corporation) included 
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB as of and for each of the years 
ended July 31, 1998 and 1997 in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 
pertaining to the American Artists Film Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan, as 
Amended.


                                            BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 9, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HYPERION SOLUTIONS CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         233,515
<SECURITIES>                                    38,341
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               399,276
<PP&E>                                         155,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 512,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   512,894
<SALES>                                        424,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               424,885
<CGS>                                          123,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  409,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               286,699
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,973
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 362/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 362 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6412 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 362

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6412 October 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (Euratom) 2021/1802 of 10 June 2021 pursuant to Article 83 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community – A summary of the key provisions of the Decision are set out below, without prejudice to the full effect of the Decision itself
  (notified under document number C(2021) 3889) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1803 of 8 October 2021 setting out the provisional amounts allocated to each Member State from the resources of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve and the minimum amount of support to local and regional coastal communities
  (notified under document C(2021) 7330) | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (Euratom) 2021/1802 of 10 June 2021 pursuant to Article 83 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community – A summary of the key provisions of the Decision are set out below, without prejudice to the full effect of the Decision itself
  (notified under document number C(2021) 3889)

(notified under document number C(2021) 3889)

1

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1803 of 8 October 2021 setting out the provisional amounts allocated to each Member State from the resources of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve and the minimum amount of support to local and regional coastal communities
  (notified under document C(2021) 7330)

(notified under document C(2021) 7330)

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The EPS information has been prepared in accordance with SEAS No. 128 and basic
and diluted EPS have been entered in place of primary and fully diluted,
respectively.
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,902                  50,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,971                   5,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                       412                     493
<INVENTORY>                                      5,724                   5,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,787                  62,370
<PP&E>                                           2,796                   6,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                     972                   2,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,611                  66,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,684                  18,183
<BONDS>                                            374                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,855                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          3                       0
<COMMON>                                            50                     201
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,355)                  48,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,611                  66,848
<SALES>                                         27,345                  50,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,345                  50,863
<CGS>                                           10,754                  19,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,754                  19,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,714                  33,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (93)                 (2,275)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,030)                     508
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,030)                     508
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,030)                     508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.72)                    0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.72)                    0.02
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Librato Bermudez, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered January 7, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On this record, we cannot say, viewing the evidence in a *light*most favorable to the People, that any rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Judy
Bruner, Chief Financial Officer of SanDisk Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the annual report on Form 10-K of SanDisk Corporation for the
year ended December 28, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SanDisk
Corporation.





By:   /s/ Judy Bruner


Judy Bruner


Executive Vice President,
Administration and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)





February 26,
2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SanDisk Corporation and will be retained by SanDisk Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>


                                  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

In connection with the Annual Report of Asta Funding, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ending September 30, 2005,as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary Stern, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

           (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
           of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
           company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
           operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: January 20, 2006


/s/ Gary Stern
-------------------------------------
Gary Stern
President and Chief Executive Officer


This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the 10-K/A as a
separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff per request.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16186]



[[Page 40817]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB267]


South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's 
(Council) joint Advisory Panel (AP) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a meeting with chairs, vice chairs, and other representatives of 
their Dolphin Wahoo, Mackerel Cobia, Snapper Grouper, and Spiny Lobster 
APs to discuss the draft Allocation Decision Tree Blueprint.

DATES: The meeting will be held via webinar on August 17, 2021, from 9 
a.m. until 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: 
    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405.
    Meeting Address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar 
is open to members of the public. Registration is required. Webinar 
registration, an online public comment form, and briefing book 
materials will be available two weeks prior to the meeting at: http://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/current-advisory-panel-meetings/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Wiegand, Fishery Social 
Scientist, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; 
fax: (843) 769-4520; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6adafabe8afb0a3b4b5a9a886b5a7a0aba5e8a8a3b2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="73181a1e5d1a051601001c1d330012151e105d1d1607">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    The AP members will meet via webinar. The AP members will review 
the draft Allocation Decision Tree Blueprint, which aims to help the 
Council incorporate other sources of information, in addition to 
landings, when making sector allocations. The Blueprint proposes an 
objective and organized approach to allocations that helps determine 
salient issues to consider when discussing sector allocations. The AP 
will provide recommendations for Council consideration as appropriate.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office 
(see ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.
    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject 
to change.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 26, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16186 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 262 Filed: 02/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:7120
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 262 Filed: 02/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:7121
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 262 Filed: 02/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:7122
#### Ivan A. Brady et al., Appellants, v William D. Woodworth, Respondent.

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and amended complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Special Term erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ action against defendant Oswego County Deputy Sheriff for negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle on the ground that it was time barred by CPLR 215 (1), which provides a one-year period of limitation during which to bring an action against a Sheriff. "The liability to which this short limitation period applies is coextensive with the liability against which a Sheriff must be bonded *(Taylor v Mayone,*626 F2d 247; *Regan v Sullivan,*557 F2d 300, 305, n 2; *Ingo v Koch,*127 F2d 667; *Dixon v Seymour,*62 AD2d 444)” *(Adams v County of Rensselaer,*66 NY2d 725, 727). The duty imposed upon a Deputy Sheriff to use reasonable care while operating an automobile upon the highway is not imposed upon him by his office, but is a general duty assumed by everyone who drives a car *(Adams v County of Rensselaer, supra,*p 727; *Dixon v Seymour, supra,*p 450; *cf. Maurice v Stoddard,*127 Misc 2d 272). Therefore, defendant is not entitled to the short limitation period of CPLR 215 (1), and plaintiffs’ action was timely commenced (CPLR 214). To the extent that this court’s affirmance without opinion of Special Term’s unreported decision in *George v County of Erie*(31 AD2d 891, *lv denied*24 NY2d 739) has been cited for authority to the contrary, it is disapproved.

Nor should plaintiff’s claim be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of claim. Service of notice of claim upon the County of Oswego is not required as a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a Deputy Sheriff because the County of Oswego has never specifically assumed liability, by legislative enactment, for the acts of its Deputy Sheriffs *(Barr v County of Albany,*50 NY2d 247, 256; *Passonno v County of Rensselaer,*87 AD2d 693, *appeal dismissed*59 NY2d 970). However, plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add the County of Oswego and the Oswego County Sheriff’s *996Department as party defendants must be denied. A county is immune from liability for the negligent acts of Deputy Sheriffs unless it has specifically enacted local legislation accepting such liability *(Barr v County of Albany, supra; Wilson v Sponable,*81 AD2d 1, *appeal dismissed*54 NY2d 834). Nor can a Sheriff be held liable for the tortious conduct of his Deputies *(Barr v County of Albany, supra,*p 257; *Foyster v Tutuska,*25 AD2d 940). Moreover, plaintiffs’ motion to add these defendants was not made within three years of the date of the accident and, therefore, plaintiffs’ claims are time barred (CPLR 214). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Lynch, J.—vacate default judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.