alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 2 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS EUGENE SHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES SIMMONS, Secretary of

Corrections; MICHAEL A. NELSON,

Warden, El Dorado Correctional

Facility,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-3303

(D. Kansas)

(D.Ct. No. 03-CV-3196-GTV)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1

 We construe Shaw’s pro se pleadings liberally. Ledbetter v. City of

Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).

2

 In pertinent part, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513 states: “(a) The following

actions shall be brought within two years: . . . (4) An action for injury to the

rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated.”

-2-

Dennis Eugene Shaw, acting pro se,1 appeals the district court’s dismissal

of his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as time barred. Exercising jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

On April 24, 2003, Shaw, an inmate at the Larned Correctional Mental

Health Facility, filed suit alleging he was denied constitutionally adequate

medical treatment. His § 1983 claim arises from the prison staff’s refusal to provide

him with pain medication shortly after he injured his back in November 1996. By way of

relief, he seeks compensatory and punitive damages of $1,500,000 from the defendants. 

Concluding Kansas’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury controls the cause

of action, the district court dismissed Shaw’s complaint as time-barred. We agree.

It is well established that claims sought under § 1983 are subject to the statute of

limitations for personal injury in effect in the state where the alleged violations occurred. 

See Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640, 642-43, 651 (10th Cir.), aff’d, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). 

In Kansas, the applicable period of limitation is two years. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-

513(a)(4).2

 Because Shaw’s complaint, filed in April 2003, arose from injuries alleged to

have occurred at least six years ago, and because he fails to address this issue in a

meaningful way, his claims are time-barred. 
-3-

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the decision of the district

court. Finally, we remind Mr. Shaw he remains obligated to make payments as directed by

the district court until the entire balance of the filing fee is paid.

Entered by the Court:

TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN

United States Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  CRUEL CUTS IN STUDENT FINANCIAL AID

  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor because I heard an 
extraordinary exchange earlier between the Democratic leader, who 
justly slammed the Republicans' budget for its cuts in student loans 
and grants that will add $5,000 to the debt burden of the typical 
financial aid student graduating from college in future years for 
families that earn less than $75,000 a year. A Republican freshman rose 
on the other side to say he would sacrifice for the sake of his 
daughter, he would take those financial aid cuts for the sake of his 
daughter.
  Well, I have got news for him. He earns $133,000 a year as a Member 
of Congress. He had a successful career as a sportscaster. His daughter 
does not need help to go to college, but millions of other American 
kids do who come from families of modest means, and he is stomping on 
their fingers as they try and reach that first rung of the ladder to 
climb up to the success that we all strive for in this country.
  These cuts are cruel and they fall only on families who earn less 
than $75,000 a year. That is the Republican budget's answer for student 
financial aid.

                          ____________________
```
#### Ison *v.*Ison.

Hill, J.

Annie Lon-Spencer Ison brought a libel for divorce against Emmett Ison, on the ground of cruel treatment and conviction of a felony. On the trial the jury granted the plaintiff a total divorce, but refused to relieve the husand of his disabilities. Subsequently the husband filed his petition praying for the removal of his disabilities. A jury refused to relieve him. A year or so later he brought a second petition to have his disabilities removed. On the hearing the judge ordered the solicitor-general of the circuit to represent the State and to make it a party, which was done. The solicitor-general filed a plea of res adjudicata. The plaintiff made a motion to strike that plea, on the ground that such a plea was not appropriate to a ease of this kind; that the issues were not the same, nor were the parties the same; that the statute in such cases contemplated “a personal status of a citizen;” that no judgment had been taken on the previous verdict finding against the removal of the plaintiff’s disabilities at the term when it was rendered. The presiding judge allowed a judgment nunc pro tunc to be entered upon the verdict, overruled the motion to strike the plea of res adjudicata, and dismissed the suit. To this ruling the plaintiff excepted. *Held,*that the court did not err in overruling the motion to strike the plea of res adjudicata, and in dismissing the suit.

(a) The first and second petitions of the plaintiff to be relieved of his disabilities are practically identical. The Civil Code (1910), § 2966, provides for a petition and hearing on the question of having plaintiff’s *226disabilities removed. It does not provide for a subsequent hearing.

No. 6368.

April 12, 1928.

Petition to remove disability. Before Judge Searcy. Spalding superior court. October 26, 1927.

*J. A. Darsey,*for plaintiff.

*E. M. Owen*and *O. L.*Redman, for defendant.

(J) No attack was made on the validity of this section of the code, and no question was made as to the right of the plaintiff to bring a suit under this section for removal of his disabilities; but it was contended that he did not have the right to bring a second suit under this section of the code after a judgment against him in a former proceeding under the same section. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William H. Mitchell, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViewpointCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;   (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and   (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Dated: May 14, 2004 By:  /s/ WILLIAM H. MITCHELL    William H. Mitchell    Chief Financial Officer
News United States Air Force
 Mobility Airmen support Canadian exercise in High ArcticPublished April 17, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Catharine Schmidt
                        
                        
                        New York National Guard
                **STRATTON AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.Y. (AFNS) --**
                Fifty Airmen from the New York Air National Guard's 109th Airlift Wing and two ski-equipped LC-130 Hercules are in the High Arctic supporting the Canadian Armed Forces’ annual Operation Nunalivut exercise in Canada's Nunavut territory.The Canadian exercise began April 1 and wraps up April 22. It is the third year that the New York ANG Airmen, based at Stratton Air National Guard Base, New York, have participated in the Canadian military exercise.The New York ANG team is operating out of three locations during the exercise -- Resolute Bay; Thule Air Base, Greenland; and Little Cornwallis Island, which is about 50 miles northwest of Resolute.Shortly after arriving, maintainers and operations Airmen began establishing a skiway camp to support LC-130 flight operations. The first LC-130 landed on the skiway April 14. A skiway is an area cleared of snow so that ski-equipped planes can land.The team who prepared the skiway consisted of eight Airmen from the 109th AW who are also trained four Canadian engineers on how to prepare a skiway for large aircraft."We're the only team in the world that does this," Maj. Matthew Sala, a member of the 109th AW, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "Our aircraft is the only C-130 in the entire world that has skis on it and can land in the Arctic and Antarctic." The LC-130s are able to provide up to 9,000 pounds of cargo per flight as opposed to 1,200 pounds the Canadians' Twin Otters can carry, allowing the LC-130 to transport in one trip what the Twin Otters would need 10 flights to move.The 109th AW will help bring fuel and supplies to the forward-deployed locations during the exercise."Our support for Operation Nunalivut allows us to demonstrate our full range of polar expeditionary airlift capabilities in a joint U.S. and Canadian environment," said Col. Shawn Clouthier, the 109th AW commander. "I'm proud of our Airmen for the great work they are doing in showcasing our unique mission all over the world."Operation Nunalivut is a sovereignty operation conducted annually since 2007 in northern Canada. According to the Canadian Forces Joint Task Force-North, the exercise provides an opportunity for the Canadian Armed Forces to assert Canada's sovereignty over to northernmost regions; demonstrate the ability to operate in the harsh winter environment in remote areas of the High Arctic; and enhance its capability to respond to any situation in the region.The New York ANG’s 105th AW, based at Stewart ANGB, New York, is also supporting the Canadian forces exercise using C-17 Globemaster IIIs.AMC 



Canada 



joint 



training 



arctic 



New York ANG 



National Guard 



ANG
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                BEA Systems, Inc.
                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                          (all amounts in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    Fiscal years ended
                                                                                        January 31,
                                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2001            2000            1999         1998          1997
                                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>

Income (loss) before income taxes                       $ 47,462         $ (5,657)     $ (46,726)    $ (20,068)     (87,034)

Add fixed charges                                         35,426           29,385         16,615         8,531        8,238

                                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings (as defined)                                   $ 82,888         $ 23,728      $ (30,111)    $ (11,537)    $(78,796)
                                                        =====================================================================

Fixed charges:
     Interest expense (1)                                 22,674           12,363         10,426         6,054        6,727

     Portion of rent expense representative
         of interest                                      10,321            7,779          5,528         2,477        1,511
     Amortization of debt premium and issuance costs       2,431            9,243            661             -            -

                                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total fixed charges                          $ 35,426         $ 29,385       $ 16,615       $ 8,531      $ 8,238
                                                        =====================================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          2.34           *              *              *            *
                                                        =====================================================================
</TABLE>

*    Earnings (as defined) were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $5,657,
     $46,726, $20,068 and $87,034 for the fiscal years ended January 31, 2000,
     1999, 1998 and 1997, respectively.

(1)  Excludes debt conversion premium of $236 and $8,054 in fiscal 2001 and
     2000, respectively, which is included in amortization of debt premium and
     issuance costs.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MATTHEW MILTON BEYERS,

Appellant,

v.

BEVERLY L. POOLE,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1849

[February 7, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lauren M. Alperstein, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE-16-

004853.

Paul E. Gifford of The Law Office of Paul E. Gifford Chartered, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Gabrielle D’Agostino of Gabrielle D’Agostino, P.A., Boynton Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without prejudice for Appellant to file a facially sufficient 

petition pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, in the trial court.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET (UNAUDITED) AS OF MARCH 29, 1998 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
(UNAUDITED) OF GREAT AMERICAN COOKIE COMPANY FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED 
MARCH 29, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                       6,542,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,804,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,575,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,195,657
<PP&E>                                      10,692,857
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,199,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,681,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,363,048
<BONDS>                                     40,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,410,690)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,681,078
<SALES>                                     23,725,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,762,552
<CGS>                                       12,971,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,274,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,457,058
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,030,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,019,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,011,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,011,352
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1045 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1045

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 
         Moines, Iowa, as the ``Neal Smith Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des Moines, 
Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``Neal Smith Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Neal Smith Federal 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 13, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1045

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 
         Moines, Iowa, as the ``Neal Smith Federal Building''.
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59057-59058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

7 CFR Part 457

RIN 0563-AC21


Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Stonefruit Crop Insurance 
Provisions; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final regulation 
which was published July 29, 2010 (75 FR 44709-44718). The regulation, 
as here

[[Page 59058]]

pertinent, related to the insurance of stonefruit.

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire White, Economist, Product 
Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk 
Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon 
Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-
6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulation that is the subject of this correction revised 
the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Regulations that published July 29, 2010 
(75 FR 44709-44718).

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulation contained an error which may 
prove to be misleading. The amendatory instruction published on page 
44717 of the Federal Register contained language specific to 
redesignating section 3(c) as 3(d) and revising redesignated section 
3(c) in the Stonefruit Crop Insurance Provisions. However, redesignated 
section 3(d) was not revised. Therefore, reference to revising 
redesignated section 3(d) on page 44717 is not needed.
    In FR Doc. 10-18359 appearing on page 44717 in the issue published 
Thursday, July 29, 2010, the following correction is made:


Sec.  457.157  [Corrected]

    1. On page 44717, in the first and second columns, remove 
amendatory instruction 3.l and redesignate amendatory instructions 3.m 
through 3.x as 3.l through 3.w.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2010.
Barbara Leach,
Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2010-23886 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
#### BRUNSWICK HILLS RACQUET CLUB v. ROUTE 18 ASSOCIATES.

March 13, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
762 A.2d 1082

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. David DUNCAN, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 16, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issues:

> a. Whether a bank customer’s name and address fall within the scope of protection of Article 1, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as defined by this court in *Commonwealth v. DeJohn,*486 Pa. 32, 403 A.2d 1283 (1979).

> b. Whether a bank customer may rely on the belief that privacy in his bank records pursuant to *DeJohn*extends to his name and address.