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


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001031003
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-26-1998
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                309,278,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6,185,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            315,463,968
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              315,463,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,185,568
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 300,000,000
<COMMON>                                      9,278,400
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                315,463,968
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             12,371,136
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              12,371,136
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          12,371,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 12,371,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129836 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129836 COA: 261200 Eaton CC: 99-020353-FC TRAVIS ALLEN BULMER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 21, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 10.10



|                  |  |                           
|----------------- |  | --------------------------
|BEA Systems, Inc. |  | 2315 North First Street   
|                  |  | San Jose, California 95131
|                  |  | Telephone: +1.408.570.8000
|                  |  | Facsimile: +1.408.570.8901
|                  |  | www.bea.com               

LOGO

April 25, 2007

Bill Klein

2315 N. First Street

San Jose, CA 95110



|RE: | FY08 Compensation Awards
|--- | ------------------------

Dear Bill:

I want to advise you that the Compensation Committee has recommended the following FY08 Cash and Equity Rewards.

Base Salary and Bonus Potential

Effective May 1, 2007,
your base salary will remain unchanged at $436,800, payable in accordance with our regular payroll cycle. Your On-Target-Earnings (OTE) is now $589,680 payable in accordance with our FY08 Company Bonus Plan. The Plan Document will be sent under
separate cover.

Equity

The Compensation
Committee, at this time did not recommend any additional equity.

Bill, I appreciate your contributions and look forward to FY08 with optimism and
excitement.



|          
|----------
|Sincerely,
|          
|Alfred
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 17, 2016 

# Order

February 17, 2016

152650 ( 77 )

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORP

. , Plaintiff

- Appell ant

,

v

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

, Defendant

- Appell ee

. SC: 152650

COA: 325484

Ct of Claims: 14

- 000219

- MT

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Council on State Taxation to

participate as amicus curiae and submit a brief in support of the application for leave to

appeal is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on February 10, 2016, is accepted for

filing.
#### S. Joy Hines, Appellant, v Arthur A. Pasquariello et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Terence J. Hines et al., Appellants, v Arthur A. Pasquariello et al., Respondents. (Action No. 4.) (And Two Other Actions.)

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cholakis, J.), entered May 2, 1984 in Schenectady County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in actions Nos. 1 and 4.

In action No. 1, plaintiff, S. Joy Hines, asserts claims against defendants based on theories of legal malpractice and negligence in the handling of matters related to the estate of her deceased husband. Mrs. Hines’ three children, who are the plaintiffs in action No. 4, also seek recovery from the identical defendants on the same grounds. The complaints allege that in November 1980, Mrs. Hines and her daughter met with defendants to retain them to assist in the administration of the estate.

The principal ground for defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints for insufficiency is an assertion contained in defendant Arthur A. Pasquariello’s affidavit that he and his firm *1002represented the estate and no one else regarding the estate. In response, Mrs. Hines avers, and her daughter confirms, that they understood that defendants had been retained and had agreed to handle all matters pertaining to the estate “and to take care of the interests of my family and me”. Mrs. Hines further attests that defendants represented her children on other legal matters and that defendants participated with her in a stratagem to maximize the distributive share of the estate given to her children at the expense of two other rightful distributees, her two stepsons.

Although plaintiffs’ complaints are inartfully pleaded, their affidavits suggest potentially meritorious claims (see, *Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 635-636) based on defendants’ alleged mishandling of plaintiffs’ personal interests in the estate. Defendants’ reliance on the statement that their firm represented the estate alone does no more than create a material triable issue of fact concerning the entity or parties they represented.

Order modified, on the law, with costs to plaintiffs, by reversing so much thereof as granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in actions Nos. 1 and 4; said motions denied; and, as so modified, affirmed. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Board of Directors
PHAMIS, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-31047, 333-31045, 333-1502) on Form S-8 of IDX Systems Corporation of
our report dated January 31, 1997, except for note 14 which is as of March
25, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of PHAMIS, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-
year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31,
1997 annual report Form 10-K of IDX Systems Corporation.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 30, 1998
#### In the Matter of Ronnie Cole, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 389]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After a correction officer delivered a food tray to petitioner’s cell and placed it on a table, petitioner threw the tray in the direction of the officer and a sergeant. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduct, interfering with an employee, committing an unhygienic act and wasting state property. He was found guilty of the charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction personnel familiar with the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Triplett v Fischer,*54 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2008]; *Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord,*31 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2006]). Petitioner’s denial of misconduct presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Cooper v Prack,*85 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2011]; *Matter of Vidal-Ortiz v Fisch*
      *1319er, 84 AD3d 1627, 1628 [2011]). Although petitioner contends that the misbehavior report was defective because his copy was not endorsed by a correction officer who had personal knowledge of the incident *(see*7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [b]), this clerical error was adequately explained by the correction officer at issue who testified at the hearing. Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced *(see Matter of McGowan v Fischer,*88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; *Matter of Pante v Goord,*73 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2010]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we find nothing to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Barrett v Fischer,*58 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2009]; *Matter of Nelson v Goord,*33 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been considered and are unavailing.

Mercure, J.R, Lahtinen, Spain, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      10,456,031
<SECURITIES>                                34,549,738
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,038,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                 14,613,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            68,210,739
<PP&E>                                      31,169,265
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,957,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,836,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,422,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,452
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,398,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,836,918
<SALES>                                     60,052,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            60,844,225
<CGS>                                       11,239,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               70,801,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               318,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             626,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,195,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,195,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,195,418)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES REPORTED IS NET OF $3,187,373 OF ALLOWANCES.
<F2>THE TOTAL COSTS INCLUDE LOSS PROVISION OF $160,328.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Elizabeth A. Spielfogel, Respondent-Appellant, v Larry R. Spielfogel, Appellant-Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 56]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Brager, J.), entered May 20, 2011, to the extent appealed from *444as limited by the briefs, awarding plaintiff an interest in Bambú Sales, Inc., maintenance including $5,000 per month for life, to begin in 2018, and counsel and expert fees, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to delete the decretal paragraph directing defendant to transfer shares of Bambú to plaintiff, and to remand for a hearing on the issue of the jewelry as provided herein and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding, defendant rebutted the presumption that the shares of Bambú that he acquired in 1994 were marital property. The uncontradicted testimony of two witnesses established that defendant’s mother paid for the shares that were transferred to defendant. The court did not call into question the credibility of this testimony, but erroneously concluded that the testimony was not sufficient to meet defendant’s burden of proving that the acquired shares were a gift resulting in separate property *(see Fields v Fields,*15 NY3d 158, 163 [2010]). There is no basis in the record to disturb the court’s crediting of defendant’s mother’s testimony explaining that the 1991 transfer of shares was a gift resulting in separate property *(see Winter v Winter,*50 AD3d 431, 432 [2008]). In addition, given the credited testimony as to defendant’s minimal involvement in Bambú, the court correctly found that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that she is entitled to a portion of any appreciation in the value of defendant’s shares in Bambú *(see Hartog v Hartog,*85 NY2d 36, 46 [1995]).

There is no basis for disturbing the maintenance award, including the award of lifetime maintenance in the amount of $5,000 per month, to commence in 2018. The court properly took into account, among other things, the duration of the marriage, the distribution of marital assets, the parties’ comfortable standard of living during the marriage, their respective income potentials, property, and future earning capacities, and plaintiffs reasonable needs and ability to become self-supporting *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; *Bayer v Bayer,*80 AD3d 492, 492-493 [2011]; *Pickard v Pickard,*33 AD3d 202, 204 [2006], *appeal dismissed*7 NY3d 897 [2006]). Nor is there a basis for disturbing the award of counsel and expert fees to plaintiff *(see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879 [1987]; *Finkelson v Finkelson,*239 AD2d 174 [1997]).

We remand to Supreme Court to make a determination on the issue of which items of jewelry are plaintiffs separate property.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.

*445Motions for sanctions and to strike a portion of reply brief denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE 
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996, AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH PERIOD
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,883
<INVENTORY>                                     95,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               281,587
<PP&E>                                         289,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 535,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,974
<BONDS>                                         95,887
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           191
<OTHER-SE>                                     256,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   535,219
<SALES>                                        173,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,281
<CGS>                                          114,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cr-00944 Document #: 12 Filed: 11/18/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:53

Case: 1:02-cr-00944 Document #: 12 Filed: 11/18/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:54
#### In the Matter of Donald Jones, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, by annulling the December 20, 1983 determination and expunging the disposition therein, and, as modified, affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 proceeding in which he sought review of three separate disciplinary hearings conducted on December 10, 1983, December 20, 1983 and January 29, 1984 at the Attica Correctional Facility. In all three hearings the petitioner was accused of violating the State-wide rules for inmate behavior based upon his refusal to stand and be counted.

At the December 20th hearing, the petitioner sought to have a physician testify in his behalf concerning his spinal ailment to show justification for his refusal to comply with the rules. The hearing officer taped the interview with the doctor, but did not have the doctor testify in the presence of the inmate. The regulations provide that a witness shall be allowed to testify at the hearing, in the presence of the inmate, unless the hearing officer determines that by so doing, it will jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals *(see,*7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]). Here the hearing officer failed to make any such determination and thus did not comply with this regulation *(Matter of Garcia v LeFevre,*64 NY2d 1001; *see, People ex rel. Bradley v Smith,*115 AD2d 225). Accordingly, the determination at this hearing must be annulled.

Petitioner may not question the January 29th hearing because of his knowing and willful refusal to attend that hearing *(see, Matter of Payne v Smith,*97 AD2d 960). We have examined petitioner’s remaining issues and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135393 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135393 

 COA: 270476 

Oakland CC: 2005-202163-FH 

GARY STUART LYON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2043

STELLA L. ARCARO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALICIA H. SMITH, individually, and as a PoliceOfficer and Agent for the Town of Christiansburg; TOWN OF CHRISTIANSBURG, A Virginia Municipal Corporation, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-59-7) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. B.K. Cruey, Shawsville, Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth K. Dillon, GUYNN & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stella L. Arcaro appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the districtcourt’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Arcaro v. Smith , No. CA-97-59-7 (W.D. Va. July 14, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED