alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

May 11, 2001

Koger Equity, Inc.
433 Plaza Real, Suite 335
Boca Raton, Florida 33432

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Koger Equity, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2001 and 2000, as indicated in our report dated May 4, 2001;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on such financial
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-55179 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-54617 of Koger Equity,
Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of Koger Equity, Inc. on
Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-33388 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-8 and
Registration Statement No. 333-38712 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
West Palm Beach, Florida
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Nathaniel Polley, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04798

Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber

Northwestern University

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, February 17, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: For the reasons

stated in the Court's 2/17/23 order, the motion for reconsideration [73] is denied.

Telephone Conference set for 3/28/23 at 9:00 a.m. Dial: 888−684−8852 or

215−446−0155, access code: 9582710#. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are

reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting

of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including

removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of

entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Joint

status report shall be filed by 3/21/23. Mailed notice (maf)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04798 Document #: 89 Filed: 02/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1279
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Michael J. Wood

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04584

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Capital Vision Services, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, May 3, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Webex Status hearing

held on 5/3/2022. Parties report they have reached settlements in principle with individual

Defendants. Webex Status hearing set for 5/23/2022 at 9:15 AM for Parties to report on

Settlement progress. Prior to the hearing, you are directed to cut and paste this hyper link

into a browser: https://us−courts.webex.com/join/virginia_kendalli lnd.uscourts.gov If you

do not have access to a device with video capability, please use the dial in option:

(650)−479−3207, the access code is: 180 698 4009. If you do have access to a device with

video capability, you are directed to appear via video. Given the increased volume of

users that is anticipated, you are directed to mute your phone and turn off your video until

your case is called. If calling in due to not having access to a computer, please remember

to SAY YOUR NAME EACH TIME YOU SPEAK so that the record of the proceedings

is accurate. You are directed not to use the speaker phone function. Mailed notice(lk, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04584 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/03/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:509
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60071

Summary Calendar

 

JOHN SHIRLEY; MARTHA SHIRLEY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

W. THOMAS McCRANEY, JR.; CAPITAL ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC, PA.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-124-WS

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

August 23, 2002

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

John Shirley (“Shirley”) and his wife Martha appeal the

district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Shirley’s

medical malpractice claims against Dr. Thomas McCraney and his

medical group. The Shirleys argue on appeal 1) that the district

court should have granted Shirley’s motion to obtain a new expert;

2) that the district court should have stricken portions of the

defendants’ summary judgment motion; and 3) that the district court

should have denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion. 
2

Shirley does not indicate that another expert witness was

available or what that witness would have stated. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shirley’s motion to

obtain another expert before ruling on the summary judgment motion.

See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990); Stearns

Airport Equip. Co., Inc. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 534-35 (5th

Cir. 1999). 

The record indicates that the district court did not consider

the defense expert witnesses and thus that the court’s failure to

strike those portions of the defendants’ summary judgment motion

was of no consequence. The Shirley’s appellate argument on this

issue is without merit. 

Our de novo review of the record reveals that the district

court did not err in granting summary judgment. Though Shirley

cites to a number of allegedly disputed facts, he points to no

evidence countering the deposition testimony of his own expert

witness that Dr. McCraney’s method of treatment did not violate the

standard of care. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 250 (1986); Brown v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp. DeSoto, Inc., 806 So.

2d 1131, 1134 (Miss. 2002). With respect to the lack-of-informedconsent claim, Dr. McCraney’s deposition testimony did not indicate

that prescribing physical therapy was below the standard of care or

that it caused Shirley’s worsened condition discovered in December

1994. See Palmer v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So. 2d 1346,

1364 (Miss. 1990). 
3

AFFIRMED.
10180.

#### Cauley *v.*The.State.

Decided January 23, 1919.

Indictment for sale of liquor, etc. from Taylor superior court— Judge Howard. June 7, 1918.

*Jere M. Moore, C. B. Marshall,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. It does not appear from the record that the trial judge abused' his broad discretion in refusing a continuance or a postponement of the case.

2. The 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the exclusion of "certain testimony, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

3. While several excerpts from the charge of the court are excepted to in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, these excerpts are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, but the only complaint in their brief, so far as the charge is concerned, is that the *entire*charge was erroneous; and there is no such exception in the amendment to the motion for a new trial. Under such circumstances the grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining of such excerpts ■ will be treated' as abandoned, and the correctness of the chai'ge as a whole will not be passed upon.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:7643
Document title: Amazon.com: Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch All Terrain Off Road Hoverboard with Bluetooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scoot...

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/Gyroor-Hoverboard-Bluetooth-Certified-Balancing/dp/B0779826VN/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:47:27 GMT Page 1 of 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:7644
Document title: Amazon.com: Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch All Terrain Off Road Hoverboard with Bluetooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scoot...

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/Gyroor-Hoverboard-Bluetooth-Certified-Balancing/dp/B0779826VN/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:47:27 GMT Page 2 of 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:7645
Document title: Amazon.com: Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch All Terrain Off Road Hoverboard with Bluetooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scoot...

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/Gyroor-Hoverboard-Bluetooth-Certified-Balancing/dp/B0779826VN/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:47:27 GMT Page 3 of 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:7646
Document title: Amazon.com: Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch All Terrain Off Road Hoverboard with Bluetooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scoot...

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/Gyroor-Hoverboard-Bluetooth-Certified-Balancing/dp/B0779826VN/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:47:27 GMT Page 4 of 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:7647
Document title: Amazon.com: Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch All Terrain Off Road Hoverboard with Bluetooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scoot...

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/Gyroor-Hoverboard-Bluetooth-Certified-Balancing/dp/B0779826VN/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:47:27 GMT Page 5 of 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:7648
Document title: Amazon.com: Gyroor Warrior 8.5 inch All Terrain Off Road Hoverboard with Bluetooth Speakers and LED Lights, UL2272 Certified Self Balancing Scoot...

Capture URL: https://www.amazon.com/Gyroor-Hoverboard-Bluetooth-Certified-Balancing/dp/B0779826VN/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?...

Capture timestamp (UTC): Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:47:27 GMT Page 6 of 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-32 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7649
10316.

#### Price *v.*The State.

Decided June 9, 1919.

Stephens, J.

Where two parties fall to fighting, and during the encounter one of them is shot and killed, it is for the jury to say, under all the circumstances, whether or not the homicide was voluntary manslaughter. The evidence supports the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of voluntary manslaughter to the jury.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*776Indictment for murder—conviction of manslaughter; from Calhoun superior court—Judge Harrell. August 17, 1918.

*A. L. Miller,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. 0. Bell, solicitor-general, F. A. Hooper-, B. W. Forison,*contra.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

d0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137612(31)

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137612 COA: 284903 Oakland CC: 2004-061786-CZ DAVID KERSH, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s January 27, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Urelift Gulf Coast, L.P. v. Travis Bennett

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00534

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 01204

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

On July 17, 2014, appellees Travis Bennett and Stabilicore, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The motion is DENIED

. Following review of the response to appellees’ motion filed by Urelift on July 28, 2014

, we agree that the order constitutes a final, appealable judgment. Although the order does not specifically address the counterclaims appellees made in their First Amended Original Answer and Counterclaims, the “declaratory judgment” claim operated as an affirmative defense to the petition filed by Urelift because declaratory judgment is not available to settle disputes already pending before a court. See Houston Aeronautical Heritage Society v. Graves , No. 01

- 12

- 00443

- CV, 2013 WL 6506301 , at *5 (Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 10, 2013, no pet.). The issue of whether a valid and enforceable confidentiality agreement existed between the parties was alr eady pending in the trial court, and therefore the declaratory judgment

counterclaim on that issue co uld not stan d.

Further, the original order, drafted by attorneys for Bennett and Stabilicore, contained language granting them attorney fees. Judge Baker affirmatively struck that paragraph from the order, thus denying the counterclaim for attorney fees.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Harvey Brown

X Act ing individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 19, 2014
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 22:46:31 Eastern Daylight Time 

Subject: Comments from the Futur e of Lif e Ins1tute 

Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 a t 5:10:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time 

From: Jared Brown 

To: NIST Explainable AI 

AFachments: NISTIR8312-FLI Comment _ 10-14-2020.xlsx 

Hello, 

Please see the aVached comments from the Future of Life Ins1tute on the "Four Principles of Explainable AI," DraX 

NISTIR 8312. The Future of Life Ins1tute (FLI) is a leading non-profit working at the nexus of emerging technology and 

governance. Since our incep1on in 2014, FLI has led and par1cipated in numerous efforts to improve the governance 

of AI technologies na1onally and interna1onally, and in both the private and public sectors. This includes our past 

commentary in the development of NIST's "Plan for Federal Engagement in Developing Technical Standards." We 

sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on these principles, and commend NIST's work thus far on this very 

important work. 

Please contact me, Jared Brown, Senior Advisor for Government Affairs, at jared@futureoflife.org with any further 

ques1ons or concerns regarding our comments. 

Sincerely, 

Jared Brown 

Senior Advisor for Government Affairs 

www.futureoflife.org 

Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         125,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,733,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   606,000
<INVENTORY>                                 28,302,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,879,000
<PP&E>                                      17,809,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,935,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             124,237,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,042,000
<BONDS>                                    108,763,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,946,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               124,237,000
<SALES>                                     96,377,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            96,377,000
<CGS>                                       76,564,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               76,564,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,532,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,969,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,312,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,352,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,960,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                489,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,471,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The Cleveland Concession Co., Appellant, *v.*City of Cleveland et al., Appellees. 

(No. 20845

Decided April 19, 1948.)

*Messrs. Spieth, Spring & Bell*and *Mr. Morton M. Stotter,*for the motion.

*Mr. Lee C. Rowley,*director of law, *Mr. Joseph R. Crowley, Mr. Robert J. Selser*and *Mr. Robert M. Morgan,*contra.

By the Court.

As we construe the pleadings in this appeal on questions of law and fact, they do not present only questions of law for determination by the court.

The petition is so drawn, that the court cannot know what the operative parts of the contract between appellant and appellees are.

The answer, although admitting certain allegations of appellant’s petition, specifically denies certain portions thereof, and generally denies its averments not admitted.

There are thus created issuable facts, or direct issues, upon material propositions—particularly, performance by appellant—which would require the in*194troduction of evidence by appellant to entitle it to judgment.

In such situation a motion for judgment on the pleadings may not properly be interposed. 31 Ohio Jurisprudence, Pleading, Section 287; 41 American Jurisprudence, Pleading, Section 336.

“2. A judgment upon the pleadings cannot be rendered when issue is joined upon a single material proposition.” *Rhoades*v. *McDowell, Recr.,*24 Ohio App., 94, 156 N. E., 526.

The motion of the appellant for judgment on the pleadings is overruled.

*Motion overruled.*

Doyle, P. J., Stevens and Montgomery, JJ., concur.

Doyle, P. J., and Stevens, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, and Montgomery, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Eighth Appellate District.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company. 

 

 

| August 11, 2008 | By: /s/ | Valerie G. Brown                    |
|---------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| (Date)                    |         | Valerie G. Brown

President

  |
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-81,148-02

EX P ARTE ANDREI G LUCK , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W03-51313-W(B) IN THE 363rd DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Applicant was convicted of the state jail offe nse of evading arr est and detention with a vehicle and sentenc ed to i m p ri s o n m en t for one hundred- eig hty

day s in county

jail pursuant to T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 12.44 (a)

. The Applicant all ege s t h at his plea of g uilty in this case was involuntary

. The State, in addition to pleading lache s, responds to Applicant’ s claim as follows, in per tinent part:Fur ther evidenc e is neede d reg arding defe nse counsel’s repr esenta tion in this case . Thus, the State reque sts th at t h i s C ourt issue an order desig nating issues and requiring the g ather ing of evidenc e, as is customary , by way of aff idavit from defe nse counsel, a hear ing, a

nd/or other mea

ns as the Court may

deem ne cessa

ry . Subsequently , on May 5, 2014, a timely o r d e r d e s ig n ating issues was signe d by the trial court. We rema nd this application to the 363rd District Court of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiar

y investiga tion and enter finding s of fac t and conclusions of law on the issue raised by the Applicant. I n addition, the trial court shall enter finding s of fac t and conclusions of law addre ssing whe ther the A pplicant’s cla im should be barre d by lache s. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 60 day s o f t h i s o rder

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 90 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time shall be obtained fr om this C ourt.

Filed: Apr il 22, 2015 Do not publish