Cases

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: Defendant Rajindar Maniktala appeals from a judgment entered in the United *26 States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Howard G. Munson, Judge) following a jury verdict convicting him on fifteen counts of mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The district court

634 F.Supp. 941 (1986) Deborah J. SCHROER and Peter J. Schroer, Plaintiffs, v. Ann CHMURA, M.D., individually and as an agent, officer or employee of the Mid-York Family Health Center, Inc., The Community Memorial Hospital, Hamilton, New York, Defendants. No. 86-CV-107. United States District Court, N.D. New York. May 16, 1986. *942

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-appellants James M. Kernan, Oriska Corporation, and Oriska Insurance Company appeal from a July 27, 2015 judgment of the district court dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice and a September 29, 2016 order of the district court denying their second motion to supplement, the record on appeal.1 The amended complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants-

Affirmed by published opinion. ■ Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge KING joined. WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Wu Tien Li-Shou, a citizen of Taiwan, seeks damages from the United States for the accidental killing of her husband and the intentional sinking of her husband’s fishing- vessel during a NATO counter-piracy mission.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendant Everett W. Thompson, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Frederick J. Seullin, Jr., Judge, convicting him of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (1988), conspiracy to defra

997 F.Supp. 264 (1998) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Louise MANGO, Kenneth Austin, Kevin Dominske, and Phenix Environmental, Inc., Defendants. No. 96-CR-327. United States District Court, N.D. New York. March 5, 1998. *265 *266 *267

The plain, ordinary meaning of the language used in sec. 2 of art. VIII of the Nevada constitution is that the intentions of the framers of the constitution were the taxation of personal property of corporations when such personal property was within the State of Nevada. The provision is a limitation upon the legislature and a constitutional declaration that personal property tax on corporations and individuals is limited to such property as is within the state. State v. Hallock,