alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Lillian Burns, Respondent, and Aetna Insurance Company, Appellant.

from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 26, 1978 in Franklin County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, to vacate an arbitrator’s award and ordered a *710rehearing before a different arbitrator. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Kane, J.,

dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum. Kane, J. (dissenting). Petitioner invoked the arbitration provisions of section 675 of the Insurance Law in an effort to recover the full cost of services rendered to her by special private duty nurses following a 1974 incident in which she was struck by an automobile insured by the respondent. Upon her application, Special Term vacated the arbitrator’s award for a lesser amount, together with attorney’s fees less than those requested, and this appeal by respondent ensued. Although the precise standard of judicial review governing such awards may be unclear, it is plain that they will not be upset if they possess some degree of rationality (cf. *Matter of Garcia v Federal Ins. Co.,*46 NY2d 1040). The dispute in this matter involved respondent’s obligation to pay "all [reasonable and] necessary expenses incurred for: (i) * * * nursing * * * services” (Insurance Law, § 671, subd 1, par [a]) and "all other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, up to twenty-five dollars per day” (Insurance Law, § 671, subd 1, par [c]; see L 1973, ch 13, amd by L 1977, ch 892). The arbitrator’s decision limiting the amount of petitioner’s reimbursement concluded that while she may have needed and received certain assistance from private duty nurses, the care provided by them was not a necessary *nursing*service owing to the availability and responsibility of regular personnel to furnish that type of service. On the subject of attorney’s fees, the decision merely reflects the arbitrator’s evaluation of the true worth of those services. Since an arbitrator is free to decide that certain items constituted nursing services even though they were not supplied by a nurse *(Matter of Maida v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*66 AD2d 852), it can hardly be thought irrational for an arbitrator to determine that not all efforts undertaken by a qualified nurse amount to necessary nursing services. Nor would an arbitrator commit more than factual error in fixing the number of hours or the value assigned to legal services rendered in connection with a given claim. The instant award resolves the issues submitted to the arbitrator and petitioner is not free to relitigate them. Even if her arguments on the merits were valid, and they are not, the arbitrator’s decision cannot be termed irrational (cf. *Matter of Garcia v Federal Ins. Co., supra).*Accordingly, the judgment of Special Term should be reversed and the award confirmed.
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 000 75 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

829 

KA 13-00057 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NATHANIEL WRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered September 25, 2012. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the

first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 130.65 [3]). As the People correctly concede, defendant’s

“purported waiver of the right to appeal is not valid inasmuch as

[Supreme] Court failed to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of

that right at the time of the plea, and instead obtained the purported

waiver at sentencing” (People v Pieper, 104 AD3d 1225, 1225). We

nonetheless reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in

refusing to suppress his statements to the police. “[T]he record of

the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the

statements were not coerced, i.e., defendant received no promises in

exchange for making the statements nor was he threatened in any way,

and the court’s determination is entitled to great deference” (People

v Peay, 77 AD3d 1309, 1310, lv denied 15 NY3d 955; see People v Brown,

111 AD3d 1385, 1386, lv denied 22 NY3d 1155; see generally People v

Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The conflicting testimony of defendant

and the investigator who testified at the hearing “merely raised an

issue of credibility that the court was entitled to resolve in favor

of the People” (People v Coleman, 306 AD2d 941, 941, lv denied 1 NY3d

596; see People v Cass, 43 AD3d 1272, 1273, lv denied 9 NY3d 1032).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
98-1492.

#### Cincinnati Indemn. Co. v. Martin.

Butler App. No. CA97-12-248. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated at pages 1-2 of the court of appeals’ Entry Granting Motion to Certify dated July 14,1998:

“The issue for certification is whether an insurer has a duty to indemnify and/or defend a homeowner/policyholder against a wrongful death claim by a non-household member wrongful death beneficiary who is not an ‘insured’ under the policy when the death involved is that of an ‘insured’ under the policy.”

The conflict case is *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thompson*(Aug. 26, 1990), Stark App. No. CA-8112, unreported, 1990 WL 125481.

*Sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1384, *infra.*

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents to the acceptance of this cause.
#### § 27.57 Request for postponement.

If the applicant desires the postponement of the classification of any cotton covered by a classification request filed pursuant to the regulations in this subpart until later notice, the original classification request must so state, or the applicant must so advise the Marketing Services Office in writing before the classification has been entered upon. Such request must show cause and that it is not made merely for dilatory reasons.

[48 FR 49212, Oct. 25, 1983]
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 27, 2017 No. 04
- 17
- 00296
- CR Juan Guzman ZUNIGA , JR . ,

Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Cou rt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR5239 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On May 8, 2017, appellant filed a noti ce of appeal with the trial court clerk in trial court cause No. 2006CR5239. This court assigned appeal number 04
- 17
- 00296
- CR to the May 8, 2017 notice of appeal. On May 25, 2017, appellant filed a second notice of appeal with the trial court clerk in trial court cause No.2006CR5239. This court inadvertently assigned a second appeal number, 04
- 17
- 00370
- CR , to the May 25, 2017 notice of appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this court administratively close appeal number 04
- 17
- 00296
- CR. Appeal number 04
- 17
- 00370
- CR will be retained on the docket as the appeal from trial court cause number 2006CR5239.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of July, 2017 .___________________________________ Luz Estrada C hief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 10-131
 
  
 FACTORING AGREEMENT
    CIT Commercial Services  nd




---



##### 



1. SALE OF ACCOUNTS
  2. CREDIT APPROVAL
   2




---



##### 



3. INVOICING
  4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
  3




---



##### 



5. PURCHASE OF ACCOUNTS
  6. ADVANCES
  4




---



##### 



7. PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS
      8. CUSTOMER CLAIMS AND CHARGE BACKS
   5




---



##### 



9. HANDLING AND COLLECTING ACCOUNTS; RETURNED GOODS
  6




---



##### 



10. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
  11. GRANT OF SECURITY INTEREST
   12. OBLIGATIONS SECURED
  7




---



##### 



13. BOOKS AND RECORDS AND EXAMINATIONS
   14. INTEREST
  8




---



##### 



15. FACTORING FEES AND OTHER CHARGES
 provided however
  9




---



##### 



16. TERMINATION
  10




---



##### 



17. EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES UPON DEFAULT
   11




---



##### 



18. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
   12




---



##### 



provided however
    13




---



##### 



19. JOINT ADMINISTRATION/SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING MULTIPLE CLIENTS
   14




---



##### 



{Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank}
 15




---



##### 



20. JURY TRIAL WAIVER
 To the extent permitted by applicable law, we each hereby waive any right to a trial by jury in any
action or proceeding arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement, or any other agreement
or transaction between us or to which we are parties.
  Sincerely,THE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Geoffrey GoldsteinName:
    
    Geoffrey GoldsteinTitle:
    
    Vice President
 Read and Agreed to:BERNARD CHAUS, INC.
    
    CYNTHIA STEFFE ACQUISITION, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ David Stiffman
    
    By:
    
    /s/ David StiffmanName:
    
    David Stiffman
    
    Name:
    
    David StiffmanTitle:
    
    Chief Operating Officer
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Operating OfficerS.L. DANIELLE ACQUISITION, LLC.By:
    
    /s/ David StiffmanName:
    
    David StiffmanTitle:
    
    Chief Operating Officer
 16




---



##### 



Accepted at New York, New YorkTHE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.
    
    S.L. DANIELLE ACQUISITION, LLC.By:
    
    /s/ Kevin J. Winsch
    
    By:
    
    /s/ David StiffmanName:
    
    Kevin J. Winsch
    
    Name:
    
    David StiffmanTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Operating Officer
 17
2006-0275.

#### Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-562,164 Ohio App.3d 808, 2005-Ohio-6888.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2434

ROGELIO RAMIREZ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-674-170) Submitted: July 18, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song E. Park, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In his brief, Ramirez challenges the fact that his decision was rendered by a single Board member without following the proper regulations based on his mistaken belief that his case was decided pursuant to the regulatory proce dures governing orders that summarily affirm without opinion. Instead, Ramirez’s case was decided by a single Board member pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5) (2005). Thus, we find that Ramirez’s claim that the Board failed to follow its own regulations is clearly without merit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Rogelio Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his second motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Ramirez’s motion. SeeINS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. SeeIn re: Ramirez , No. A70-674-170 (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2004). * 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 29.2290 Premature primings.

Ground leaves harvested before reaching complete growth and development. These leaves lack body and strength. (See Rule 22, § 29.2413.)
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 MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sang Park, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 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/ Sang Park                        
|Sang Park                            
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|November 14, 2006                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscalquarter ending September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Michael T. Flavin,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date: November 10,  2009          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ Michael  T. Flavin                 |
|   | Michael T.  Flavin                          |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer                    |
|   | Advanced Life  Sciences Holdings, Inc. |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2271 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2271

To authorize the acquisition of core battlefield land at Champion Hill, 
 Port Gibson, and Raymond for addition to Vicksburg National Military 
                                 Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2013

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the acquisition of core battlefield land at Champion Hill, 
 Port Gibson, and Raymond for addition to Vicksburg National Military 
                                 Park.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and 
Raymond Battlefields Addition Act''.

SEC. 2. VICKSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK.

    (a) Acquisition of Land.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to 
        in this Act as the ``Secretary'') may acquire the land or 
        interests in land within the area identified as ``Modified Core 
        Battlefield'' for the Port Gibson Unit, the Champion Hill Unit, 
        and the Raymond Unit and the area identified as ``Golden West 
        Cemetery'' in Port Gibson, as generally depicted on the map 
        entitled ``Vicksburg National Military Park-Proposed 
        Battlefield Additions'', numbered 306/100986A, and dated April 
        2011.
            (2) Methods of acquisition.--Land and interests in land may 
        be acquired under paragraph (1) by donation, purchase from a 
        willing seller with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, 
        except that land owned by the State of Mississippi or any 
        political subdivisions of the State may be acquired only by 
        donation.
    (b) Availability of Map.--The map described in subsection (a)(1) 
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate 
offices of the National Park Service.
    (c) Boundary Adjustment.--On the acquisition of land by the 
Secretary under subsection (a)--
            (1) the acquired land shall be added to Vicksburg National 
        Military Park;
            (2) the boundary of the Vicksburg National Military Park 
        shall be adjusted to reflect the acquisition of the land; and
            (3) the acquired land shall be administered as part of the 
        Vicksburg National Military Park in accordance with applicable 
        laws (including regulations).
                                 <all>
```
§ 29.1 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart A, the following terms shall have the following meanings: ( a ) *Additional sale* means an additional auction sale proposed to be conducted on a designated market.
( b ) *Adequate set of buyers* means 5 or more buyers representing 5 or more companies or buying organizations which either will use the tobacco in the manufacture of tobacco products in this country or in foreign countries, or will pack and sell the tobacco later for use by manufacturers in this country or foreign countries, and who could reasonably be expected to purchase at least two-thirds of the total U.S. production of the kind of tobacco for which the additional services are requested.
( c ) *Auction market* means a marketing center containing one or more warehouses where tobacco is delivered by producers thereof, or their agents, for sale by the auction process. There may be one or more auction sales on an auction market.
( d ) *Bona fide auction sale* and *auction sale* mean the buying and selling of tobacco offered by producers by the auction process which customarily and usually consists of an adequate set of buyers; an auctioneer who takes each buyer's bid; a sales starter who makes the opening bid on each lot; and a ticket marker who records the applicable sales data on each lot.
( e ) *Designated market* means an auction market designated by the Secretary under section 5 of the Tobacco Inspection Act including the town or city which is the population center of the market and whose name the market bears and all of the geographical area within 5 road miles of the boundaries of said city or town as they are constituted on January 1, 1993. *Provided,* That any warehouse beyond those boundaries which received tobacco inspection and price support services during the 1992 marketing season shall continue to receive such services at the same location regardless of any prohibition contained herein: *And further provided,* That this geographical limitation may be waived by the Secretary after a hearing held pursuant to §§ 29.2 and 29.3.
( f ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to whom authority has heretofore been delegated, or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated, to act in his stead.
( g ) *Hearing Officer* means any administrative law judge appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105, and assigned to the proceeding involved, or such other employee of the Department of Agriculture as the Secretary may designate to act as hearing officer at such hearing.
( h ) *New market* means an auction market, other than a designated market, at which inspection service under the tobacco Inspection Act was not provided on a regular basis during the preceding marketing season.
( i ) *Hearing Clerk* means the Hearing Clerk of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
( j ) *Kind of tobacco* means any one of the following: Flue-cured, Burley, Fire-cured, Dark air-cured, Maryland or Virginia sun-cured.
[37 FR 7765, Apr. 20, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 3548, Jan. 28, 1974; 42 FR 17097, Mar. 31, 1977; 58 FR 21343, Apr. 21, 1993]
#### § 29.1167 Mixed (M Group).

This group consists of tobacco from three or more groups or two distinctly different groups which are mixed together in various combinations.

*Grades, Grade Names, Minimum Specifications, and Tolerances*

M4F—Fair Quality Mixed Groups

Ripe, firm leaf structure, heavy, lean in oil. Injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

M5F—Low Quality Mixed Groups

Ripe, firm leaf structure, heavy, lean in oil. Injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

M4KR—Fair Quality Variegated Red or Scorched Mixed Groups

Ripe, firm leaf structure, fleshy, lean in oil. Injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

M4KM—Fair Quality Variegated Mixed Groups

Unripe, close leaf structure, heavy. Injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

M5KM—Low Quality Variegated Mixed Groups

Unripe, tight leaf structure, heavy. Injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

M4GK—Fair Quality Green Variegated Mixed Groups

Immature, close leaf structure, heavy. Injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

M5GK—Low Quality Green Variegated Mixed Groups

Immature, tight leaf structure, heavy. Injury tolerance, 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

[49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                       1995 10-K

                            F&M BANCORPORATION, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


F&M Bank-Kaukauna*

F&M Merger Corporation

     F&M Bank-Fennimore*

     F&M Bank-Kiel*

     F&M Bank-Lakeland*

     F&M Bank-Northeast*

     F&M Bank-Portage County*

     F&M Bank-Potosi*

     F&M Bank-Superior*

     F&M Bank-Winnebago County*

BancUnion Corporation

     F&M Bank-Lancaster*

F&M Bank-Appleton*

F&M Bank-Hilbert*

F&M Bank-New London*

F&M Bank-Waushara County*

     Each of the above named subsidiaries is organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Wisconsin.
__________________

<PAGE>   2


     *Each of these banks has a subsidiary organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Nevada which holds and manages that bank's investments.