alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Brenda WHITLOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN NEW YORK, also known as Advanced Home Care, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5335-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 26, 2006.

*37Brenda Whitlow, Buffalo, N.Y.,* pro se.

Amy L. Hemenway, Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (on submission), for Defendant-Appellee.

Present PIERRE N. LEVAL, GUIDO CALABRESI and DANIEL M. FRIEDMAN,** Circuit Judges.

*

 Although the court’s records indicated that Whitlow would proceed by submission, she appeared for oral argument, and was heard by the panel.

**

The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Brenda Whitlow brought suit against Defendant-Appellee Visiting Nurse Association (“VNA”), her former employer, alleging violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117. Whitlow, an African American woman diagnosed with Graves’ disease, claimed that VNA discriminated against her, principally by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for her condition and by treating white employees with disabilities more favorably. VNA moved for summary judgment, and the district court (Curtin, *J.)*granted the motion. Proceeding *pro se,*Whitlow appeals.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the relevant facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We conclude that summary judgment in VNA’s favor was warranted for the reasons given in the district court’s thorough and careful opinion. Although Whitlow satisfied the first step of the *McDonnell Douglas*burden-shifting framework by making out a *prima facie*case of discrimination, VNA articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, thereby rebutting the presumption of discrimination. *See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); *Terry v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 128, 138 (2d Cir.2003); *Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc.,*313 F.3d 758, 767 (2d Cir.2002). Whitlow presented no evidence to permit an inference of discrimination, either on the basis of race or disability, as she would have to have done to survive summary judgment. *See Terry,*336 F.3d at 138; *Mario,*313 F.3d at 767. The district court’s dismissal of Whitlow’s complaint, therefore, was proper.

We have considered all of the arguments made by Whitlow and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYBRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,750
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  182,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,158
<INVENTORY>                                    176,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               475,363
<PP&E>                                         227,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,578,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,889
<BONDS>                                        828,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,032  
<OTHER-SE>                                     500,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,578,487
<SALES>                                        248,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,330
<CGS>                                          122,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (162)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                     539
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,860
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6384

BOBBY J. OLDHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; MICHAEL W. YORK;

JOSEPH G. PICKELSIMER; NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; DENNIS M. ROWLAND,

Special Assistant to the Director of Prisons;

JENNIFER H. LANGLEY, Assistant Superintendent

for Custody and Operations at Albemarle

Correctional Institution; JOHN DAVIS, Unit

Manager at Albemarle; MR. COOK, Programmer at

Albemarle; CAPTAIN STRICKLAND; TODD W. PINION,

Assistant Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-02-379-1)

Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby J. Oldham, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II,

Assistant Attorney General; James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bobby J. Oldham appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

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

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

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

that relief be denied. The timely filing of specific objections to

a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. See

Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997);

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

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Oldham has waived appellate review of the magistrate

judge’s conclusion regarding the objective component of the test to

establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim based

upon exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by failing to

specifically object. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-36

(1993) (discussing Eighth Amendment standard); Odom v. S.C. Dep’t

of Corr., 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of Section 596 of Public Law 110-417, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is terminating the Board of Advisors to the President Naval War College.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-6128.

Dated: June 4, 2009.

Morgan E. Frazier,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. E9-14101 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

-        2 Quaker Road Corp., a New York Corporation

-        2 Quaker Road, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company

-        265 Livingston Street Corp., a New Jersey Corporation

-        Barrcip Inc., a Delaware Corporation

-        Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a New York Corporation

-        BMI, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

-        Barr Distribution Company, a Delaware Corporation

-        BRL, Inc. d/b/a Barr Research, a Delaware Corporation

-        Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

-        Marketmaster, Inc., an Ohio Corporation

-        Duramed Reasearch and Development Corporation, a New York Corporation

-        Duramed Europe, Ltd., a UK Corporation
#### In the Matter of Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Respondent. Washed Aggregate Resources, Inc., Appellant.

Decided May 30, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### Foote *v.*Stein *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

May 22, 1888.)

Patents fob Inventions—Tnfbingemknt—Hat-Racks—Gbain-Bands.

.Letters patent No. 56,569, July 24, 1866, lor improvement in hat-racks, granted to Charles II. Keener, act on a different plan, and do not anticipate, letters patent No. 135,899, February 18, 1873, granted to Elisha Foote for improvements in grain-bands, bag-ties, etc.

Iii Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. On motion to open default.

Eunice N. Foote, administratrix, complainant, filed a bill to enjoin Edward A. Stone and Louis Stein, defendants, from infringing patent jSTo. 135,899, February 18, 1873, granted to Elisha Foote for improvement in grain-bands, bag-ties, etc. Judgment by default against defendants; who moved to set it aside on the ground that the Foote patent had been anticipated by letters patent No. 56,569, July 24, 1866, for improvement in hat-racks.

*O. M. Plymplon,*for complainant.

*H. A. West,*for defendants.

Lacoaibe, J.

Waiving all question as to the regularity of defendants’ practice, and treating this as a motion to open a default upon nowlydiseovered evidence, I am nevertheless of the opinion that the relief they ask must be denied. The patent is undoubtedly a narrow one; and with every respect for the opinion of the able judges who have heretofore sustained it, *(Foote*v. *Frost,*14 O. G. 860; *Frost*v. *Marcus,*13 Fed. Rep. 88,) it is by no means certain that, upon a record which should contain the earlier Butterfield patent, No. 57,247, the supreme court would find that complainant’s device exhibited either novelty or invention. If, therefore, it were a question of allowing the interposition of a defense which set up the last-named patent, the present application would stand upon a different footing. Such, however, is not the case. The Butter-field patent was well known to defendants when they confessed judgment, and the patent which they submit as newly discovered (Keener’s improvement in hat-racks, No. 56,569) acts upon an entirely different principle, and is in no sense an anticipation of the patent here sued on.
Exhibit 31(c)

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Hugh T. McDonald, certify that:1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.;2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.










|/s/ Hugh T. McDonaldHugh T. McDonald
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	March 9, 2004
Exhibit
32.1





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 International Packaging and Logistics
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and
belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/  Steve
Westlund


Steve
Westlund


Chief
Executive Officer, President


and
Director





May 20,
2009
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Apogent Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank H. Jellinek, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    FRANK H. JELLINEK, JR.Frank H. Jellinek, Jr. Chief Executive Officer May 10, 2004




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
C>

MAY 2 5 2005

Marilou Rickert, Tribal Attorney

Skokomish Indian Tribe

N. 80 Tribal Center Road

Skokomish Nation, Washington 98584

Dear Ms. Rickert:

This letter responds to your request for the National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC)

review and approval of the amendment to the Skokomish Indian Tribe's (Tribe)

Gaming Code, received on March 16, 2005. Resolution No. 05-20, adopted by the Tribe

on February 16, 2005, amends its Tribal Gaming Code to decrease the number

of Gaming Commissioners to three (3) at section 4.02.090(a) of the Skokomish Gaming

Code and now reads: "The Tribal Commission shall be comprised of three Tribal

Commissioners, who shall be appointed by the Tribal Council". The Tribal Gaming Code

was approved by the Chairman of the NIGC on April 30, 1996. This letter constitutes

approval ofthe amendment under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Thank~-:ing the Tribe's Tribal Gaming Code amendment for

rev~ and approval. you have ~estions or require further assistance, please contact

. Frances Fragu t 202/632-70oa.

NATIONALHEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GOV

REGIONALOFFICESPortland,OR:Sacramento,CA;Phoenix,Al: St. Paul,MN;Tulsa,OK
EXHIBIT 10.24

PROMISSORY NOTE

        FORVALUE RECEIVED, **THE FAIRCHILD CORPORATION**, a Delaware corporation, and **FAIRCHILDHOLDING CORP.**, a Delaware corporation (individually and collectively,“Maker”), do hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of **BEALBANK, S.S.B.**, a savings bank organized under the laws of the State of Texas(“Payee”), at its office at 6000 Legacy Drive, 4 East, Plano, Texas 75024, or atsuch other place as the holder hereof may from time to time designate in writing, inlawful money of the United States, the principal sum of THIRTEEN MILLION AND NO/100DOLLARS ($13,000,000.00), or so much thereof as is advanced on the loan evidenced herebypursuant to the Loan Agreement, as hereinafter defined, with interest thereon as providedin this Note.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000824778
<NAME> ENSTAR INCOME/GROWTH PROGRAM SIX-A1 L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         749,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,031,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,516,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,084,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,036,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,777,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,084,000
<SALES>                                      1,674,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,674,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,518,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>