alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
568 F.2d 1389

#### WALKO CORPORATION, Appellant v. BURGER CHEF SYSTEMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation et al.

No. 75-1135.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1977.

*

 Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d). Mr. Justice Clark participated in the initial opinion in this case but died thereafter and did not participate in this supplemental opinion.

*168Supplemental Opinion After Certification to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (D.C. Civil 74-674).

Before Mr. Justice TOM CLARK,* Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and ROBINSON and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

The District Court dismissed appellant’s diversity action as time-barred because initiated after the three-year period set by the applicable Maryland statute of limitations.1 Before commencing suit, appellants had attempted unsuccessfully to intervene in an earlier action to which the appellees were parties.2 If the running of the statute was tolled for the period during which that motion was pending, the present action would have been timely, but otherwise not.

When the case was first before us, we held that under the *Erie*doctrine 3 the question of tolling in these circumstances was to be determined by Maryland law;4 and because we were uncertain as to the state-law principles governing, we certified the question to the Maryland Court of Appeals5 pursuant to a Maryland statute affording us that opportunity.6 The Court of Appeals has now responded with a holding that “the statute of limitations was not suspended during the pendency of the motion to intervene.” 7 The court based this conclusion in large part on policy considerations and the legislative judgment reflected in the statute of limitations,8 thus confirming the wisdom of our decision to leave the question of *169tolling to the forum more able to identify and evaluate the critical factors.9

The ruling of the Maryland Court of Appeals disposes of the only issue remaining on this appeal after our earlier opinion. Now that we are authoritatively and fully informed on the Maryland law applicable to the situation at bar, the judgment appealed from must be

*Affirmed.*

1

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc.,*Civ. No. 74-674 (D.D.C.) (orders of Dec. 13, 1974).

2

. The background of this dispute is elucidated in our earlier opinion, *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc.,*180 U.S.App.D.C. 306, 307-308, 554 F.2d 1165, 1166-1167 (1977).

3

. *Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,*304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).

4

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc., supra*note 2, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 312-313, 554 F.2d at 1171-1172.

5

. *Id.*at 313-314, 554 F.2d at 1172-1173.

6

. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 12-601 (1976).

7

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc.,*281 Md. 207, 216, 378 A.2d 1100, 1104 (1977).

8

. *Id.*

9

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc., supra*note 2, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 312, 554 F.2d at 1171.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 024

- 1602 LT Case No. 2014

- CF

- 8454

- A

_____________________________ C OREY L YDELL M ORMAN , J R ., Petitioner ,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________
Petition for Belated Appeal

. A Case of Original Jurisdiction

. Ryan Edward McFarland , Kent & McFarland , Jacksonville , for Petitioner.
Ashl e y Moody, Attorney General , and Ryan Roy , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

. July 19, 2024
P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and treated as the notice of appeal from the order denying Petitioner ’s motion for postconviction relief rendered September 2, 2022, in Case No. 2014

- CF

- 8454

- A , in the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).2 P ETITION G RANTED

. E DWARDS , C.J. , and L AMBERT and J AY , JJ., concur
.

____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
#### Jacquelyn Milbrand, as Parent and Natural Guardian of C.L., an Infant, Respondent, v Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda Union Free School District, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 809]

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by her son while he was engaged in a game of “tape ball” during a physical education class. When plaintiffs son stepped on one of the rubber bases placed on the gymnasium floor for the tape ball game, the base slipped, and he fell. Plaintiff alleged that defendant negligently supervised her son and otherwise failed to provide him with proper equipment to engage in the tape ball game. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

*1342It is well settled that, “[w]hile not insurers of the safety of students, schools are ‘under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision’ ” *(Schrader v Board of Educ. of Taconic Hills Cent. School*Dist., 249 AD2d 741, 742 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 806 [1998], quoting *Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; *see Jennifer R. v City of Syracuse,*43 AD3d 1326, 1327 [2007]). In carrying out that duty, schools are “obligated to exercise such care of their students ‘as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances’ ” *(David v County of Suffolk,*1 NY3d 525, 526 [2003], quoting *Mirand,*84 NY2d at 49). To establish that a school district breached that duty, “a plaintiff must show that the district had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct and that the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained” *(Ronan v School Dist. of City of New Rochelle,*35 AD3d 429, 430 [2006]).

We conclude that defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. Defendant submitted evidence that the physical education teacher was present throughout the class and that closer supervision could not have prevented plaintiffs son from suddenly slipping and falling *(see Swan v Town of Brookhaven,*32 AD3d 1012, 1013-1014 [2006]; *see also Ronan,*35 AD3d at 430; *see generally Mirand, 84*NY2d at 49-50). Further, defendant submitted the affidavit of an expert who had taught physical education for over 30 years, and he asserted therein that defendant used appropriate equipment, i.e., rubber bases, for the tape ball game and that the rubber bases were used in their accepted manner *(see Walker v Com-mack School Dist.,*31 AD3d 752 [2006]). The record further establishes that, prior to the incident, no one had sustained an injury from the use of the bases, nor had defendant otherwise been informed that the bases created a dangerous condition *(see Ronan,*35 AD3d at 430). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Walker,*31 AD3d at 752-753). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 02, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 02, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1192. MICHAEL WAYNE RICE et al. v. DONNA SUE PARKER et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RIVERWOOD
HOLDING, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          16,507
<SECURITIES>                                       792
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,294
<INVENTORY>                                    224,567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               991,454
<PP&E>                                       1,649,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,172,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          328,390
<BONDS>                                      2,048,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                     688,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,172,467
<SALES>                                        585,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               585,529
<CGS>                                          528,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  528,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   543
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             101,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (117,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,356)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (105,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  28,376
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (77,427)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.19



 Exhibit 10.19 
 ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. 
 Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 Non-employee directors of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. (the “Company”) who are not members of or affiliated with the Welsh, Carson, Anderson &
Stowe group of the Company’s stockholders or with Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC (“independent directors”) receive cash fees for their service on the board of directors of the Company and on committees of the board. All independent
directors are eligible to receive equity-based fees pursuant to the ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan for their board and committee service. 
 Beginning on January 1, 2008, independent directors receive annual fees of $75,000 and the chairman of each of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the governance committee receives an additional
annual fee of $10,000. All such fees are paid in cash. All directors are entitled to reimbursement for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures incurred in connection with their board and committee service. 
 Each independent director also receives annual awards of restricted stock units pursuant to the ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive
Plan. In November 2008, independent directors each received 50,000 restricted stock units, which had a value at grant of less than the historical target of $55,000. Due to recent volatility in the Company’s stock price, the board of directors
intends to evaluate the value of that award during 2009 and, if it deems such action to be appropriate in its discretion, make an additional cash or equity payment such that the total annual award to directors would approximate a value of $55,000.
Each award of restricted stock units will vest ratably on the first and second anniversaries of the grant date.
* 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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41275 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANDRES SAENZ REYNA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:07-CF-13-4 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Andres Saenz Reyna has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Reyna has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 12



                   NORTH SHORE GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

           STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                (Dollars in Thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Fiscal years ended September 30,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996            1995            1994            1993            1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                       <C>            <C>              <C>            <C>              <C>
Net Income Before Preferred
      Stock Dividends                     $16,347        $  9,048         $10,378        $  8,973         $12,527

Add - Income Taxes                         10,154           4,859           5,087           4,788           7,257
      Fixed Charges (see below)             5,741           7,196           6,648           7,198           6,175
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings                                  $32,242         $21,103         $22,113         $20,959         $25,959
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed Charges:
      Interest on Long-Term Debt           $4,937        $  5,905        $  6,326        $  6,718        $  5,500
      Other Interest                          804           1,291             322             480             675
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Total Fixed Charges               $5,741        $  7,196        $  6,648        $  7,198        $  6,175
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges           5.62            2.93            3.33            2.91            4.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Gregory B. Kenny, certify that:1) I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of General Cable Corporation;2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3) Intentionally omitted;4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)), for the registrant and have:     (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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date:December 7, 2005     /s/ Gregory B. Kenny   Gregory B. Kenny  President and Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## December 18, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136856 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

## Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



## v SC: 136856 COA: 285015 Oakland CC: 2007-216676-FH ROBERT SCOTT LONG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the May 27, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1218 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.

December 18, 2008

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    6
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE FUND AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000811860
<NAME>                    SATURNA  INVESTMENT  TRUST
<SERIES>
                                                           <NUMBER>          5
   <NAME>                    IDAHO  TAX  EXEMPT  FUND
                                                       <MULTIPLIER>          1
<CURRENCY>                    US  DOLLARS
       

<CAPTION>



<S>                          <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>               DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>          4,887,562
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>         5,095,688
<RECEIVABLES>                     90,862
<ASSETS-OTHER>                   197,075
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 5,383,625
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>         124,434
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          4,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>              128,627
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                        0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>       5,068,912
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>            995,307
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>            964,641
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>              0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>          (22,040)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>               0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>         208,126
<NET-ASSETS>                   5,254,998
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                      0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                299,389
<OTHER-INCOME>                    (5,692)
<EXPENSES-NET>                    40,610
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          253,087
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>          47,467
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        (17,678)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            282,876
<EQUALIZATION>                         0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>       (253,388)
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                  0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>          126,666
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>      132,545
<SHARES-REINVESTED>               36,545
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>           190,764
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>             0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>             25,451
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   48,921
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>           5,090,274
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               5.25
<PER-SHARE-NII>                     0.26
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>             0.03
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                0.26
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>              0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                   0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 5.28
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                     0.80
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                 0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                   0
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry BRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50032.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Fred W. Slaughter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Terry Bray, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

*520Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Terry Bray appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction to modify a sentence under section 3582. *See United States v. Wesson,*583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Bray contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. However, Bray was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guidelines range that has been lowered, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify his sentence. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *Wesson,*583 F.3d at 731-32.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.