alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 15,171.

#### The Baltimore and Ohio and Chicago Railroad Company *v.*Smith, Treasurer, etc.

Filed May 11, 1892;

petition for a rehearing overruled June 14, 1892.

From the Lake Circuit Court.

*H. Newbegin,*for appellant.

*R. C. Bell*and *S. R. Morris,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

— This action is *by*the appellant against the appellee to enjoin the collection of a tax placed upon the duplicate of Lake county on the property of appellant in Hobart township, as its *pro rata*share of an appropriation of $10,000 aid voted by the qualiñed^voters of said township to the New York and Chicago Railway Company, or its successors by consolidation, to construct a railroad through said township. The same facts are pleaded both in the complaint and answer, and the same questions are raised, and the same agreement made as in the case of *Lake Shore, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *Smith, ante.*p. 512.

Both cases having been fully briefed, raising the identical questions, and having been passed upon in the other case, we affirm this judgment on the decision in that case.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McBride, J., dissents.
**Exhibit        32(a)**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1948

___________________________

Jason Harris

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: May 2, 2016

Filed: May 13, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Jason Harris brought an action under the Federal Tort Claims

Act alleging that, after he injured his finger in a cell door at the Forrest City Medium

FederalCorrectionalInstitution, an emergency roomphysician recommended tendon

repair within two weeks, yet his scheduled consultation with an offsite orthopaedist
was not until 18 days later. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment

1

in favor of the United States, concluding that Harris presented “no evidence to show

that the delay was caused by any of the Defendant’s employees, or that it affected [the

orthopaedist’s] diagnosis.” Harris appeals. 

Harris’s sole argument for reversal is that the district court erred in applying

the medical negligence standard of care in the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act, see

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-202, rather than the standard for ordinary negligence. 

However, the asserted error did not affect Harris’s substantial rights. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 61. Before trial, the district court determined that the negligence asserted by Harris

was within the court’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, and

therefore the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act did not require Harris to prove

negligence by means of expert testimony. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206. After

trial, the court concluded that Harris failed to prove that any employee of defendant

caused the delayed diagnosis, so the court did not reach the question of what standard

of care would apply if a medical provider had caused the delay.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
From: Steve Coplan <steve@bigid.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:54 PM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Subject: NIST Privacy Framework: Preliminary Draft Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current draft of the NIST Privacy Framework. We feel that the initiative 

comes at a critical time, and builds effectively on the broad market acceptance for the NIST CSF.

Bridging privacy and security through a clearly defined framework will prove invaluable to bringing current resources and 

expertise to bear on operationalizing privacy protection - and scoping the incremental organizational, technical and policy 

elements that should be put in place.

As enterprises come to terms with a growing number of privacy protection and data breach notification laws across the 

US, we are appreciative of the work that has gone into providing clarity and structure to achieve outcomes.

Attached are our comments related to the Identify and Govern Functions.

Best,

Steve Coplan

Director of Product and Solution Marketing

BigID - Redefining Personal Data Protection & Privacy

165 Mercer St, 4th Floor, New York, NY, 10012

m: (646) 567-3752 | e: steve@bigid.com |

see: bigid.com/product/tour | read: bigid.com/blog | try: bigid.com/demo
Comment 

#

Organization 

Name

Submitted By 

(Name/Email)

Page 

#

Line 

#

Section Comment

(Include rationale for comment)

Suggested Change Type of 

Comment 

(General/Editorial

/Technical)

1 BigID Stephen Coplan, 

steve@bigid.com

21 684 Appendix 

A

Currently, the scope of personal 

information isn't formally addressed in 

the framework- which is in effect a 

superset of PII. For the Identify-P 

function, the framework could be 

strengthened with guidance that is 

specific to the discovery and definition of

personal information/data (ie data 

related, linked, associated to a person). 

The CSF includes language for discovery of 

sensitive and regulated data in the 

context of breach notification, and similar 

language could be mirrored in the PRF. 

The process of defining and determining 

what constitutes personal information 

through collaboration with stakeholders 

would in turn informs how Functions are 

implemented. 

Include examples that 

delineate the distinction 

between personal 

information and 

sensitive or regulated 

data, such as IP address, 

religion, sexual 

orientation, health 

status etc 

General 

2 BigID Stephen Coplan, 

steve@bigid.com

22 684 Appendix 

A

The Govern Function could be elaborated 

to establish a distinction between 

anonymization at the data element tier, 

as compared with encryption as 

mitigating control for the CSF - to account 

specifically for the risk of re-identification 

in the context of profiling. 

Include language or 

recommendations to 

consider increased risk 

of re-identification 

without provision for 

anonymization or 

redaction of identifiable 

attributes in the context 

of profilinng or analytics 

processes. 

Technical 

3
*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

DEC 10 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LEMAN L. HUTCHINSON, JR., 

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 97-3170

v. (D.C. No. 94-3274-RDR)

WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; U. S.

PAROLE COMMISSION, 

(D. Kansas)

Respondents-Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and the 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner is a military inmate now incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons at the

United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. Petitioner 

filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming that the
2

United States Parole Commission abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and

capriciously at hearings conducted in February 1994 and February 1996 by denying him

release on parole. He appeals the order of the United Stated District Court for the District

of Kansas denying his section 2241 habeas corpus petition and dismissing the action.

Although not clearly required to appeal a denial of habeas corpus relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, we grant Petitioner a certificate of appealability. However, we affirm on

the merits for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order filed

May 20, 1997.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARRIN TERRONE AUZENNE, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-571-CB-N 

)

MICHAEL MCCRORY, ) 

)

Respondent. ) 

 ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

' 636 is adopted as the opinion of this Court. 

It is ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, 

and that plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE this ____ day of _____________________, 2010. 

/s/ 

CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR. 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

19 July

Charles R. Butler, Jr.

Case 1:08-cv-00571-CB-N Document 25 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 1
1 The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-4139

___________ Ricky Ashley, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the A. Massey, CO Officer, Cummins * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unit, Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Correction; Sgt. Dean, Cummins * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 20, 1996 Filed: December 26, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ricky Ashley, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court's 1 entry of judgment upon a jury verdict in defendants' favor on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Ashley challenges the district court's admission of certain testimony. Having carefully reviewed the record, including the trial transcript and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony at issue. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2002 of FMS Financial  Corporation  (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Craig W. Yates,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Channing L. Smith,
Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer,  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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



/s/Craig W. Yates                             /s/Channing L. Smith
--------------------------------              --------------------------------
Craig W. Yates                                Channing L. Smith
President and                                 Vice President and
Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer



August 9, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magnitude  Information Systems,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2005
(the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my  knowledge,   that  the  Company's   Form  10-QSB  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB,  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 11, 2005               /s/  Joerg H. Klaube
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHANIEL HAYES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0275-CG-N

)

GRANT CULLIVER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to abide by the order of this court.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00275-CG-N Document 18 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4
 
   
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report dated November 20, 1998, on the consolidated financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 1995, 1996 and 1997 of S-Sixteen Holding Company and
Subsidiaries, included or made a part of this Registration Statement of
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation (formerly Box Energy Corporation), on Form
S-4, and to all references to our firm included in this document.
    
 
                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
   
November 23, 1998
EXHIBIT 31.2
IEA Income Fund IX, L.P.
Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, John Kallas, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund IX, L.P. (the“Partnership”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005   /s/ JOHN KALLAS     John Kallas  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of CCC
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4773 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4773

 To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia 
           to consist of the union of one man and one woman.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 7, 2004

Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia 
           to consist of the union of one man and one woman.

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

SECTION 1. MARRIAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    In the District of Columbia, for all legal purposes, ``marriage'' 
means the union of one man and one woman.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 15

To
the Board of Directors and Shareholder of
Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York:

We
have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the unaudited interim condensed financial statements of Allstate
Life Insurance Company of New York for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, as indicated in our report dated May 13, 2003; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on such financial statements.

We
are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

|Form S-3 Registration Nos. |  | Form N-4 Registration Nos.             
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|333-58512
333-100029       |  | 333-68344
333-81970
333-94785
033-65381

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.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
May 13, 2003

27

---
Order filed March 25, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00961

- CR

____________ ERIC GUY MARKLE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8

Harris County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 1859025



### ORDER Appellant is represented by retained counsel, Charles G. Kingsbury. No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. Sondra Humphrey , the court reporter
for this case , informed this court that appellant had not made arra ngements for

paym ent for the reporter’s record. On February 26, 2014 , the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided thi s court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no response . Accordingly, we issue the following order:We ORDER appellant ’ s retained counsel , Charles G. Kingsbury , to file a

brief in this appeal on or before Apri l 24, 2014. If Charles G. Kingsbury does not timely file the brief as ordered, the court will consider issu ing an order for a hearing in the trial court or a show cause order directing counsel to appear before this court on a date certain to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the brief as ordered.

PER CURIAM
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40744 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CLAUDIO GARCIA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 249

- 1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Claudio Garcia has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed brief s in accordance with Anders v.
California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th
Cir. 2011). Garcia h a s not filed a response. We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 19, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40744 Document: 00515003166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2019No. 18

- 40744

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANT ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40744 Document: 00515003166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2019