alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GLENDORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis JACOBS; John M. Walker, Jr.; Roseann B. Mackechne; Bernard F. Madsen, Jr.; Ralph Gargulio, Physician’s Assistant; Subhash Kulkarni; Hudson Valley Emergency Physician; Leroy Phillips; Ashok Shah; Asghar Anwar; Hudson Valley Critical Care Physicians, PC; Diane Kantaros; James Scaduto; Daniel Capurri; Daniel M. Philbin; Lawrence S. Schek; Khurrzm I. Ashraf; Taconic Cardiothoracic Surgeons; Peter Zakow; Hud*270son Valley Urology; Hudson Valley Radiology PC; Bryan Yen; Donald Lien; Mark R. Brady; Benjamin Seckler; Philip Amatulle; Henry J. Fischer, Jr.; Joseph Antonio; Jack I. Hentzel; Goldstein W. Zev; Vassar Brothers Medical Center; NCO Financial Systems, Incorporated, f/k/a The Revenue Maximization Group, Incorporated; Daniel P. Siccone; Paul Laplante; Reggie Anderson; Dianne Bennett; Charles F. Dolan; James L. Dolan; Mack Budill; Thomas Garger; Charles A. Formz; Cablevision Systems Corporation; Robert Callaway; Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke; Deznell Reece Tachz; Paul J. Kelly, Jr.; Judicial Council; Harris I. Hartz; Patrick Fischer; Audrey Weigel; Hug; O’Scanlain; Tashima; Cathy Catterson; Jeff Crocker; Robert W. Doyle; Robert A. Lifson; Kenneth W. Rudolph; Nancy Sunshine; William W. Wilkins; Boyce F. Martin; Lauri Bzttanani; James O. Robbins; Cox Communications, Incorporated; Carol B. Amon; J.L. Edmondson; Robert E. Gerber; Shelley C. Chapman; Karen Murphy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1764.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Glendora, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Glendora appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Glendora v. Jacobs,*No. CA-03-1166-MJG (D.Md. Apr. 30, 2003). 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.*
Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 23 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 23 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-00120-WES Document 23 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit – 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:
 (1)  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-116414) pertaining to the Milacron Inc. 2004Long-term Incentive Plan,  (2)  Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-115948 and333-115949) pertaining to the Milacron Inc. RetirementSavings Plan,   (3)  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56403) pertaining to the Milacron Inc. 1994Long-term Incentive Plan,  (4)  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-69194) pertaining to the Milacron Inc. 1997Long-term Incentive Plan, and  (5)  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-74426) pertaining to the Milacron Inc. Plan for the Deferral of Directors' Compensation,
of our report dated March 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule listed in Item 15(c) included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) ofMilacron Inc., and to the references to our firm in Item 9A of this Annual Report.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
                                 Estimated volume                Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      ______________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
1994......    |          10       1      1        3        6      .048      .003      .003     .013     .026
1995......    |          12       0      3        6        4      .055     -.001      .011     .027     .016
1996......    |           7       0      1        2        4      .031      .000      .003     .009     .017
1997......    |          16      -1      0        3       14      .064     -.003     -.001     .010     .054
1998......    |           6      -1      3        0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0      3        5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12      3        8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10      9        5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8      6        5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |          32       4      6        8       14      .082      .010      .015     .021     .034
2004......    |          18       1      5        2       10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
2005......    |        n.a.       2     11     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .005      .024     n.a.     n.a.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6753

DANIEL LEVERN STALEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARION COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; W. T. JOHNSON,

Director, Marion County Detention Center;

REGINA REED; ROSE BETHEA; RENEE CAESAR;

OFFICER CAMPBELL; BETTY GAUSE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (9:06-cv-03207-PMD)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Levern Staley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Levern Staley appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Staley that failure to file

timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Staley failed to file

specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Staley has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vicky
F. Savage, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Company.



Dated:  February 28, 2008       By: /s/ Vicky F. Savage
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Vicky F. Savage
                                    ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                    (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             157,947
<SECURITIES>                                        27,965
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   197,294
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,713,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               68,934
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            32,616
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,552,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,713,669
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,318
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      157,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (154,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (154,985)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Del R. Gilbert & Son Block Co., Inc.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-504-PB

Allan Block Corporation

O R D E R

Plaintiff moves to amend its complaint to add a new cause of

action based upon allegations that defendant’s patents have been

held invalid. Defendant’s objection is based on a futility

argument, namely that the patents have not been invalidated. 

Only a number of “claims” were invalidated.

The precise allegation in the amended complaint is:

“78 . . . neither of Allan Block’s patents remains in force

. . .”.

Neither party addressed directly whether the ‘236 patent is

really enforceable when several of its claims have been held

invalid. See Allan Block Corporation v. County Materials Corp.,

2008 WL 5273730, *17 (D. Minn.). Judge Erickson said that “Allan

Block does not dispute county’s assertion that the ‘010 Patent

expired . . .” Id., at *8. An allegation that they are not “in

force” has a basis.

Case 1:08-cv-00504-PB Document 12 Filed 05/13/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Under the circumstances, it is not clear that the amendment

is futile. The motion (document no. 10) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 13, 2009

cc: Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.

 Matthew R. Johnson, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00504-PB Document 12 Filed 05/13/09 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

444444444444444

NO. 03-06-00209-CV

444444444444444

In re Samuel T. Jackson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Samuel T. Jackson filed this petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

motion to stay disqualification. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus and overrule the motion

to stay disqualification.

 

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Filed: April 14, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-95-01-SM

Roger Guilbault,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Guilbault’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document

no. 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of January 2009. Defendant

Guilbault shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than October 6, 2008. 

On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective. 

 The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:08-cr-00095-SM Document 12 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for January 9, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on January 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 23, 2008

cc: Michael Shklar, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00095-SM Document 12 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Reid, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 829]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on or about August 27, 2002, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2004...... 39.38 68.02 52.88 25.95 47.58 110.83 3.81 14.82 46.26 360.52 2005...... 40.42 69.13 47.05 26.41 63.49 99.94 3.83 14.62 47.14 333.02 2006...... 49.71 65.53 59.36 32.84 74.12 138.48 4.90 14.96 46.68 340.26 2007...... 48.27 64.93 50.33 36.27 47.41 117.22 5.35 15.11 46.62 302.38 2008...... 58.61 76.08 70.62 44.10 45.70 136.09 5.49 15.03 46.79 335.20 2006: Q1... 43.76 45.56 49.62 37.78 39.28 96.24 3.81 15.09 47.28 288.50  Q2... 51.32 51.29 50.51 32.34 123.28 132.75 5.39 14.82 45.54 364.91  Q3... 51.48 81.93 89.64 26.57 50.49 172.18 5.41 15.01 45.16 377.96  Q4... 53.61 80.54 57.82 33.44 71.05 155.58 5.56 14.96 48.79 341.00 2007: Q1... 58.33 76.05 54.29 50.88 32.69 120.07 5.34 15.10 47.15 296.76  Q2... 39.55 48.25 33.93 32.08 41.55 95.17 5.40 15.11 45.96 276.68  Q3... 42.93 42.18 63.99 28.28 62.22 108.75 5.26 15.19 45.88 296.12  Q4... 54.29 84.90 53.85 36.07 53.00 145.08 5.39 15.03 47.47 335.44 2008: Q1... 66.99 70.42 57.84 57.17 37.17 152.28 5.63 15.42 46.38 339.22  Q2... 53.03 64.25 58.32 39.04 59.60 127.92 5.40 14.76 46.37 310.75  Q3... 56.57 97.26 91.69 40.35 42.95 136.38 5.42 14.53 46.29 368.80  Q4... 58.67 82.63 77.87 41.38 39.40 131.00 5.55 15.40 47.93 328.69 2009: Q1... 73.87 67.25 59.90 72.04 50.22 112.97 5.38 14.98 48.10 384.54  Q2... 47.33 47.69 45.07 41.40 33.44 98.43 5.38 15.17 46.75 308.72  Q3... 44.03 66.51 85.58 32.07 41.81 93.60 5.31 14.78 46.66 318.34  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1515

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment for

foreign tax credit limitation purposes of certain transfers of intangible

property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. SHAW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify

the treatment for foreign tax credit limitation purposes

of certain transfers of intangible property.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN

4 TRANSFERS OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section

6 367(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For

8 purposes of applying the foreign tax credit limitation cat-
2

•HR 1515 IH

1 egories of section 904(d), any such amount shall be treat2 ed in the same manner as if such amount were a royalty.’’

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 this section shall apply to amounts treated as received pur5 suant to section 367(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code

6 of 1986 on or after August 5, 1997.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-87806 and 333-13269) of Converse Inc. of our 
report dated February 19, 1997, except as to Note 16, which is as of March 14, 
1997, appearing in Converse Inc.'s December 28, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We also consent to the application of such report to the Financial Statement 
Schedule for the two years ended December 28, 1996 when such schedule is read in
conjunction with the financial statements referred to in our report. The audits 
referred to in such report also included this Financial Statement Schedule.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


Boston, Massachusetts

March 21, 1997
#### In the Matter of Joshua T. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; John T., Appellant. (Proceed*807ing No. 1.) In the Matter of Brittney T. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; John T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jessica T. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; John T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Karen T. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; John T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Stephen T. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; John T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of Tia Otta T. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; John T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 6.)

[807 NYS2d 580]

In six related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), entered December 9, 2004, which, after a hearing, and upon a finding that he was in violation of the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment of the same court entered May 5, 2004, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the father failed to satisfy some of the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment, warranting its revocation *(see Matter of Jordan Amir B.,*15 AD3d 477 [2005]). The evidence supports the further determination of the Family Court that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests *(see Matter of Aaron S.,*15 AD3d 585 [2005]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.