alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Grimes et al. *v.*Muzzillo et al.

[No. 12,169.

Filed July 1, 1925.]

Landlord and *Tenant.—Notice to quit not necessary when ten*ancy; *for definite*term.—Under the provisions of §9545 Burns 1926, §8059 Burns 1914, §5213 E. S. 1881, where a tenancy is for a definite period of one year from a fixed date, no notice to quit is necessary.

From DeKalb Circuit Court; *William P. Endieott,*Judge.

*369Action by Frank Muzzillo and others against Irving Grimes and others: From a judgment for plaintiffs, the defendants appeal. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Edgar W. Atkinson,*for appellants.

*W. H. Mountz,*for appellees.

Remy, C. J.

Appellees, owners of certain real estate, leased the same to appellants for one year from July 1, 1923, at a rental of $55 per month payable monthly “in advance on or before the first day of each calendar month of said term.” By the express terms of the lease, which was in writing, the tenancy expired July 1, 1924. Appellants remained in possession, under the lease, making rental payments monthly in advance, the last payment being made June 1, 1924. Appellants did not vacate the premises at the expiration of the tenancy; but held over without any new contract of any kind, without the payment, or tender of payment, of rent, and without the consent of appellees. Whereupon, on July 16, 1924, in the court of a justice of the peace, appellees commenced suit for possession and damages. A trial resulted in a judgment for appellees, from which judgment, appellants appealed to DeKalb Circuit Court, where, on August 29, 1924,' the cause was again tried with a like result, except that the judgment for damages was increased from $75 to $110. From the judgment of the circuit court, this appeal is prosecuted.

The tenancy created by the contract of the parties being for the definite period of one year, the year ending July 1, 1924, it terminated on that date by limitation, and appellants were entitled to no notice to quit. § 9545 Burns 1926, § 5213 R. S. 1881; *Barrett*v. *Johnson*(1891), 2 Ind. App. 25, 27 N. E. 983; *Millington*v. *O'Dell*(1905), 35 Ind. App. 225, 73 N. E. 939; *Lautman*v. *Miller*(1902), 158 Ind. 382, 63 N. E. 761.

*370The holding over by appellants was wrongful.

From the record, it clearly appears that this appeal, which is without merit, was taken for. delay.

Judgment affirmed, and ten per cent, damages are assessed in favor of appellees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                          $        13
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,049
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    56
<BONDS>                               1,006
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,062
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        

</TABLE>
§ 291.2 Definitions. ( a ) All terms have the same meaning as set forth in the definitional section of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. section 2703(1)-(10).
( b ) The term “compact” includes renewal of an existing compact.
§ 20.101 What is the purpose of this part? The regulations in this part govern the provision to eligible Indians of the following kinds of financial assistance and social services: ( a ) Adult Care Assistance;
( b ) Burial Assistance;
( c ) Child Assistance;
( d ) Disaster Assistance;
( e ) Emergency Assistance;
( f ) General Assistance;
( g ) Services to Children, Elderly and Families; and
( h ) Tribal Work Experience Program.
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors of 

World’s Foremost Bank 

Lincoln, Nebraska 

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Report on Compliance with Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that World’s Foremost Bank (“WFB”) complied with the servicing criteria setforth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Cabela’s Master Credit Card Trust and Cabela’s Credit Card Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, excluding criteria in Items 1122(d)(l)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(x) -1122(d)(4)(xiii), which management has determinedare not applicable to the activities performed by the WFB with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for WFB’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion aboutWFB’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about WFB’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, determining whether WFB performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Ourprocedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by WFB during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in thePlatform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by WFB during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on WFB’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that WFB complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.
§ 700.183 Determination of replacement housing benefit. ( a ) *Amount of benefit.* The replacement housing benefit for a certified eligible head-of-household is an amount not to exceed fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) for a household of three or less and not to exceed sixty-six thousand dollars ($66,000) for a household of four or more. Subject to such other requirements of these regulations as may apply, the replacement housing benefit shall be calculated as follows; ( 1 ) The amount of the fair market value of the habitation and improvements purchased from an eligible head-of-household pursuant to subpart B of this part shall be applied first toward the cost of a replacement dwelling.
( 2 ) An additional amount shall be added to the value of the habitation and improvements to equal the cost of a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling.
( 3 ) The total value of the replacement dwelling shall not exceed the amount of the replacement housing benefit specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 4 ) In the event the cost of providing a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling is less than the fair market value of the habitation and improvements purchased from an eligible head-of-household pursuant to subpart B of this part, the difference shall be paid to that head-of-household.
( b ) The Commission shall, on or before the first Friday in April of each fiscal year, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, annually increase, decrease or leave unadjusted the above limitations on replacement housing benefits to reflect changes in housing or development and construction costs, other than costs of land, during the preceding year. In determining whether to increase or decrease the replacement housing benefit limitations set forth above, the Commission shall consider the following: ( 1 ) The most recent percentage rate of increase or decrease in single family housing construction costs reported by HUD. (General Prototype Housing Costs For One to Four Family Dwelling Units).
( 2 ) The most recent Boecht Building Cost Modifier.
( 3 ) The experience of relocatee families in obtaining replacement housing within the current benefits.
( 4 ) The cost of available replacement housing which meets Commission standards as set forth in these regulations.
( 5 ) Such other available information which the Commission deems appropriate and which is relevant to a determination of whether replacement housing benefits should be increased or decreased to reflect change in housing or development and construction costs during the preceding year.
( c ) If the owner retains ownership of his dwelling, moves it from the acquired site, and reoccupies it on a replacement site, the purchase price of the replacement dwelling shall be considered to be the sum of— ( 1 ) The cost of the replacement site, if any; plus
( 2 ) The moving and restoration expenses; plus
( 3 ) The costs, if any, incurred to make the unit a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling; but not to exceed the above limitation on total replacement home benefits.
[47 FR 17988, Apr. 27, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 21951, June 10, 1987]
EX-34.1
(logo)pwc


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.
(the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax
service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2012 and for the year
then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi),
1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which
the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed
by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2012 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing
customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 6, 2013


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201
T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
#### § 1.1 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise—

*Administrative Committee* means the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register established under section 1506 of title 44, United States Code;

*Agency* means each authority, whether or not within or subject to review by another agency, of the United States, other than the Congress, the courts, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States;

*Document* includes any Presidential proclamation or Executive order, and any rule, regulation, order, certificate, code of fair competition, license, notice, or similar instrument issued, prescribed, or promulgated by an agency;

*Document having general applicability and legal effect* means any document issued under proper authority prescribing a penalty or course of conduct, conferring a right, privilege, authority, or immunity, or imposing an obligation, and relevant or applicable to the general public, members of a class, or persons in a locality, as distinguished from named individuals or organizations; and

*Filing* means making a document available for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register during official business hours. A document is filed only after it has been received, processed and assigned a publication date according to the schedule in part 17 of this chapter.

*Regulation* and *rule* have the same meaning.

[37 FR 23603, Nov. 4, 1972, as amended at 50 FR 12466, Mar. 28, 1985]
§ 700.119 Establishment of fair market value. ( a ) *General.* The Commission shall establish the amount of fair market value to be offered to the owner for the habitations and/or improvements. Such amount shall not be less than— ( 1 ) The appraiser's recommendations as to the fair market value of the habitations and/or improvements; or
( 2 ) The fair market value estimate set forth in the agency's approved appraisal, if the property is valued at $2,000 or less.
( b ) *Owner retention of improvements.* If the owner of a habitation and/or improvement is permitted to retain it for removal off-site, the amount determined to be just compensation for the interest in habitations and/or improvements to be acquired from him shall not be less than the amount determined by subtracting the salvage value of the improvements he retains for off-site removal from the amount determined to be fair market value for his entire interest in the habitation and improvement. Retention of improvements by the owner shall not change, alter or abrogate the requirement of the Act that the owner must move from land partitioned to the tribe of which he/she is not a member.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 26, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-1358

Lower Tribunal No. 14-25490

________________



### Timothy Malone

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa TinklerMendez and Ellen Sue Venzer

, Judges

.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public

Defender

, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph, Assistant Attorney

General

, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.The defendant, Timothy Malone, appeals his convictions for burglary of an

unoccupied dwelling and petit theft. We affirm, but remand for correction of the

judgment to reflect that the conviction for petit theft is a second-degree

misdemeanor, not a second-degree felony. As counsel for the defendant candidly

admits that the error was a scrivener’s error, not judicial error, which when

corrected will not affect the defendant’s sentence (which was credit for time

served), the judgment may be corrected without conducting a new sentencing

hearing.

Affirmed, with instructions.

2
# C_2006167EN.01000101.xml

| 19.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 July 2006

(2006/C 167/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2531 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 146,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4598 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68490 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2527 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5641 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 94,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9295 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,445 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 278,45 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0263 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5857 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,63 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,562 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9833 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6684 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4213 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7418 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9956 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9947 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 201,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,0163 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0268 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2452 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 578,64 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,615 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,995 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,8590 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,777 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2531

JPY

Japanese yen

146,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4598

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68490

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2527

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5641

ISK

Iceland króna

94,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9295

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,445

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

278,45

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0263

RON

Romanian leu

3,5857

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,63

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,562

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9833

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6684

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4213

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7418

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9956

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9947

KRW

South Korean won

1 201,28

ZAR

South African rand

9,0163

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0268

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2452

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 578,64

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,615

PHP

Philippine peso

65,995

RUB

Russian rouble

33,8590

THB

Thai baht

47,777

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 476 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     December 15, 2000.
Whereas in 1901, in the Act popularly known as the Army Reorganization Act, the 
        Congress established the Army Nurse Corps as a permanent corps of the 
        Medical Department of the Army;
Whereas 2001 is the centennial of the Army Nurse Corps;
Whereas the law establishing the Army Nurse Corps designated it as a female 
        unit;
Whereas men, whatever their qualifications or accomplishments, could not enter 
        the Army Nurse Corps because of its designation as a female unit;
Whereas more than 59,000 women bravely served in the Army Nurse Corps during 
        World War II, and more than 5,000 woman served during the Korean War;
Whereas some male nurses who might have served in the Army in officer grades 
        instead, due to the exclusion of males from the Army Nurse Corps, served 
        in enlisted grades as Army hospital corpsmen in World War II and the 
        Korean War;
Whereas male nurses expressed concern about this situation to the Surgeon 
        General, their congressional representatives, and newspapers;
Whereas the Congress opened the Army Nurse Corps to males in August 1955, 
        thereby allowing male nurses in the Army to be commissioned as officers, 
        and the Army Nurse Corps became the first gender integrated corps in the 
        Army that year;
Whereas today the Army Nurse Corps is open to both men and women; and
Whereas men and women have bravely served in the Army Nurse Corps in Vietnam, 
        Desert Storm, and other military engagements since 1955: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the present Army Nurse Corps for extending equal 
        opportunities to men and women; and
            (2) recognizes the brave and honorable service during and before 
        1955 of--
                    (A) men who served as Army hospital corpsmen; and
                    (B) women who served in the Army Nurse Corps.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 amended quarterly report of Consolidated Energy, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer 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 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/ Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer

Date: November 21, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
H. Res. 387

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 18, 1999.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Social Security Act to expand the availability of health care coverage for working individuals with disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work and

Self-Sufficiency Program in the Social Security Administration to provide such individuals with meaningful opportunities

to work, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the conference report and against its consideration are

waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.