alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jason Brian B. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Rachel B., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 329]

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated April 18, 2005, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 7, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that she had neglected the subject child as a result of her mental illness and her history of aggressive behavior with the father of the subject child, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until October 31, 2005. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 7, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until October 31, 2005, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

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

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until October 31, 2005, must be dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has already expired *(see Matter of Daqwuan G.,*29 AD3d 694 [2006]; *Matter of Michelle L.,*24 AD3d 443 [2005]). However, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant’s status in future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal from the portion of the order of disposition which brings up for review the finding of neglect is not *996academic *(see Matter of Daqwuan G., supra; Matter of Michelle L., supra).*

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner established a prima facie case of neglect with respect to the subject child *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). The evidence established that the mother had a history of ongoing psychiatric problems, including impulse control disorder, which induced depression, and a history, as well, of aggressive behavior with the father. Moreover, rather than being capable herself of caring for the child, she was forced to rely on the maternal grandmother for this care. The finding of neglect was supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see Matter of Angel Marie L.,*5 AD3d 773 [2004]; *Matter of Michelle H.,*208 AD2d 726 [1994]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Anaren Microwave, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-19618, No. 33-1768, No. 33-36761 and No. 333-03193) on Form S-8 of Anaren
Microwave, Inc. of our report dated August 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Anaren Microwave, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998
and June 30, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 30, 1998, which report appears in the June 30, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-K of Anaren Microwave, Inc.


                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Syracuse, New York
September 25, 1998
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
> 
> (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
> 
> (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.

|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation                         
|------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|       | General Partner                                                   
|       |                                                                   
|By:    | /S/ Kelly Tucek                                                   
|       |                                                                   
|Name:  | Kelly Tucek                                                       
|Title: | Vice President of the General Partner and                         
|       | principal financial officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.
|Date:  | August 11, 2005
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John R. Judd, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ATS Medical,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of 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 officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluations, and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affectedor is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any Fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004    /s/ John R. Judd     Name: John R. JuddTitle: Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The  undersigned  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited Partnership  II-G  ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of November, 2002.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP II-G
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-21106

Summary Calendar

JEANNENE MEINECKE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

H & R BLOCK OF HOUSTON, a general

partnership; ADMINISTAFF,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-94-CV-19)

May 29, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

J eannene Meinecke sued H&R Block and Administaff, her former employers , alleging

age and sex discrimination and breach of contract. On March 13, 1994 the parties filed a

stipulation declaring that all claims against A dministaff and the breach of contract claims

against H&R Block would be dismissed voluntarily. 1 Several days later, however, the district

court granted the defendants summary judgment and dismissed all of Meinecke’s claims with2 Meinecke v. H&R Block of Houston , 66 F.3d 77 (5th Cir. 1995).

3 Id. at 84.

4 We would mere ly note that our prior opinion observed that the claims subsequently

included in the ame nded judgment were dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii).

This rule provides in pertinent part:

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is

without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon

the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United

States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.

2 prejudice.

On direct appeal we reversed the grant of summary judg ment as to those claims

included in the antecedent voluntary dismissal, 2 remanding with instructions that the district

court “reform the judgment to reflect the dismissal of all claims against Administaff and the

breach of contract claims against H&R Block.” 3 On November 22, 1995 the district court

entered the following Amended Final Judgment:

Pursuant to the judgment and mand ate of the Court of Appeals, this

court dismisses all claims agai n st Administaff and the breach of contract claims against H&R Block.

This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.

Meinecke now appeals, contending that the inclusion of the phrase “This is a FINAL

JUDGMENT” is a departure from this court’s mandate insofar as it obscures whether the

judgment is w ith or without prejudice. This argument is specious. The district court’s

“Amended Final Judgment” is correctly termed a “final judgment” because it ends the instant

litigation. What Meinecke in fact seeks, but may not secure through the medium of this

appeal, is an advisory opinion concerning the judgment’s preclusive effect in the event she

refiles the voluntarily dismissed claims. 4

Appeal DISMISSED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2152** 

BERNARD SCARBOROUGH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
WALMART CORPORATION, f/k/a Wal

- Mart Super Center Stores, Incorporated , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Graham C. Mullen , Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv
- 00263

- GCM )

Submitted : May 24, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HA MILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Bernard Scarborough, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Stephen Clarke, LITTLER MENDELSON, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in th is circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bernard Scarborough appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his employment discrimination and malicious
prosecution action for failure to state a clam . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Scarborough v. Walmart Corp. , No. 3:10

- cv
- 00263

- GCM (W.D.N.C.
Sept. 8, 2010) . 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
Exhibit 4.1







THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 17, 2013


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, High 20 Dividend Strategy Trust,
Series 5


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, High 20 Dividend Strategy Trust, Series 5 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on July 17, 2013, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-188084) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO
CIPRIANO_______________ 


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          111326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         1710688
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1993029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           102475
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2195235)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1993029
<SALES>                                         432650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                (3414)
<CGS>                                           399049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   442949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 41124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              174634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (219172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (219172)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (219172)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (121.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (121.76)
        

</TABLE>
#### LANNING v. NATIONAL SAVINGS *&*TRUST CO.

Civil Action No. 8077.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Oct. 21, 1941.

Harvey B. Cox and Dorsey K. Ofifutt, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Leo P. Harlow and Marshall H. Lynn, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiff filed her original complaint on August 20, 1940. This was dismissed on motion of defendant on October 3, 1940, with leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed on October 9, 1940, and on October 30, 1940, the amended complaint was dismissed on motion of the defendant. On November 8, 1940, a second amended *150complaint was filed, to which the defendant filed an answer January 13, 1941.

No further action having been taken by the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed by the Clerk under Rule 24.

On August 20, 1941, plaintiff filed a motion to revive the suit and restore it to the calendar, upon the ground that it had not been calendared for trial “through the inadvertance and oversight of counsel”; that the statute of limitations had run against the bringing of a new suit, and that it was not proper and just that plaintiff should be denied her right to a hearing. The plaintiff’s counsel filed points and authorities in support of this motion, based upon the contention that the clerk had no power to dismiss the suit until plaintiff’s default had continued for *one year.*It is clear that there is no basis for this contention. See Rule 24 in force at that time.

At the argument of the motion plaintiff’s counsel abandoned the position set out in the motion but stated that he had not known of the change in Rule 24 of the period of one year to that of six months.

Since then he has filed an affidavit that he had not calendared the case because of his illness for more than three months beginning shortly after the pleadings were settled; that his associate counsel did not know that the case had not been calendared; that a new action would be barred by the statute of limitations, and that it would not be just to deprive the plaintiff of her right to a hearing by reason of the negligence or lack of diligence of her counsel.

Nothing was said at the argument as to the illness of plaintiff’s counsel.

This is an action against an executor for services rendered to the decedent. The deceased died November 28, 1938; plaintiff did not file her claim until November 25, 1939, and although the claim was promptly rejected, did not bring this suit until August 20, 1940. This shows a lack of diligence on the part of plaintiff herself. The lack of diligence and knowledge of plaintiff and her counsel would result, if the suit were reinstated, in tying up the settlement of the estate for a period of time far beyond that in which the estate could normally be settled. I do not think that justice would be served by passing over neglect of this kind to the injury of others.

The motion should be overruled.
<PAGE>





                                                                    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 ATS Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deborah K. Chapman,
Controller 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, to the
best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



                                          /s/ Deborah K. Chapman
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Deborah K. Chapman
                                          Controller
                                          August 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ATS Medical, Inc. and will be retained by ATS Medical, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 15.1


August 2, 2010
 
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 100 F Street, N.E.
 Washington, DC 20549
 
 Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-160994, No. 333-153151, No. 333-142199, No. 333-142202, No. 333-127223, No. 333-51418, No. 333-49392, No. 333-47194, No. 333-47665, No. 333-47667, No. 033-52387, No. 033-65932, No. 033-65930 and No. 033-28534).
 
 Commissioners:
 
 We are aware that our reports dated August 2, 2010 on our review of interim financial information of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (the “Company”) and AllianceBernstein L.P. for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 and included in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 are incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements referred to above.
 
 Very truly yours,
 
 /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew York, New York
97-187.

#### State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim.

Cuyahoga App. No. 71185. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. On February 20,1997, appellee filed a second supplement pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. VII(3). Appellee’s supplement does not contain the proof of service required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(C). Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2)(C) prohibits the filing of a document that does not contain a proof of service,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellee’s supplement be, and hereby is, stricken.