alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raymond J. Smith, Respondent, v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co., *Appellant.*

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster Comity, granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment, denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages to fix the respondent’s award. Two of respondent’s natural infant daughters were injured in an automobile accident while passengers in an automobile owned and operated by respondent’s stepdaughter, Peggy Perry. Respondent seeks to recover for the injuries sustained by his infant daughters under the medical payment provisions of an “ automobile combination family policy ” issued to him by appellant. Respondent’s recovery depends on whether Peggy Perry was a “ relative ” of respondent under the terms of the policy. The policy defines “ relative ” as *“*a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same hotisehold.” This definition, which restates the word itself, does not, of course, satisfactorily clarify the issue. While we recognize that doubtful construction of terms utilized in an insurance policy is resolved in the insured’s favor and against the insurer *(McGuinness*v. *MVAIC,*18 A D 2d 1100; *Appleton*v. *Merchants Mut. Ins.,*16 A D 2d 361, 363) and that the word “relative” as utilized in insurance policies has been construed either narrowly or broadly to provide coverage *(McGuinness*v. *MVAIC, supra; Appleton*v. *Merchants Mut. Ins., supra; Indiana Mut. Ins. Co.*v. *Passalacqua,*30 Misc 2d 626, 629), in the final analysis the test is reason-ability *(Harris*v. *Allstate Ins. Co.,*309 N. Y. 72, 76) —what meaning do the words convey as understood in their plain, popular and ordinary sense (Mans*baeher*v. *Prudential Ins. Co.,*273 N. Y. 140, 144) — and from the viewpoint of the average man *(McGrail*v. *Equitable Life Assur. Soc.,*292 N. Y. 419, 424; *Tonkin*v. *California Ins. Co.,*294 N. Y. 326, 329). When “ relative” is considered along with the limiting phrase “ resident of the same household ”, the policy intent to deny coverage to other cars readily available to covered persons within the same household is noted, and the close affinity, although not consanguinity, present in the stepdaughter-stepfather relationship is recognized, it is our opinion that Peggy Perry was a “ relative ” under the policy giving that term its plain, ordinary meaning as understood by the average man *(Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.*Y. v. *Jackson,*297 F. 2d 230). In any event, although the parties do not argue the point, we note that the term “ named insured ” means respondent “and also includes his spouse, if a resident of the same household If respondent’s wife does reside with him, then it would seem that her daughter Peggy Perry is a relative of a “ named insured ” and her automobile accordingly excluded. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, respondent’s motion for summary judgment denied, and appellant’s motion for summary judgment granted, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum *Per Curiam.*Reynolds, J., concurs in the result.
**Wisconsin**

**Wisconsin 14 Oconto**
Characterization Additive 

Background: 

This work is to characterize the additive by NMR spectroscopy. 

Experimental Details: 

NMR Spectra were recorded on Bruker AVANCE 500 MHz NMR Spectrometer. About 10% w/w sample in 

CDCl3 containing TMS as an internal standard was used for the analysis. The 1H NMR spectra was 

recorded at 500.116 MHz with 9.0 μs 30o pulse length, 10,000 Hz spectral width, 128 transients with 2 

sec recycle delay. The 125.766 MHz 13C NMR spectrum of the sample was recorded at 30-40% solution in 

CDCl3. The quantitative spectra was obtained in the inverse gated mode and using the 0.1M Cr(acac)3 as 

a relaxation agent. The spectral parameters used were as follows: numbers of scans 3072, relaxation 

delay 4 second, and spectral size 32K with time domain size of 64K. 

Results and Discussion: 

The 1H NMR spectrum of the Sample is presented in Figure 1. The broad NMR signal at 

probably corresponds to . In addition to signals between 

 there are two predominant signals and corresponding to 

of the of the molecule. Overall, the predominant signals in the 1H NMR spectrum 

support the presence of compound presented in structure 1. 

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Figure 1: 1H NMR spectrum of the sample . 

Structure 1 

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]
In addition, there are four small signals in the region of the 1H spectrum at 

ppm and a broad signal at The corresponding signals appear mostly as shoulder to 

predominant signals present in the region ( The broad signal at 

could be due to Overall, the small signals in the 1H NMR spectrum 

support the presence of compound presented in structure 2. 

Structure 2 

The 13C NMR spectrum of the is presented in Fig 2. The spectrum reveals predominant 

signals, at and signals between . Overall, these 

signals in the 13C NMR spectrum confirm the presence of compound presented in structure 1. 

[ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ]
Figure 2: 13C NMR spectrum of the sample . 

In addition, there are four small signals in the region of the 13C spectrum at 

ppm and multiple small signals in the region of the spectrum ( Overall, the small 

signals in the 13C NMR spectrum further support the presence of compound presented in structure 2. 

 [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]
H. Res. 658

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

May 2, 2006.

Whereas the global celebration of World Water Day is an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro; 

Whereas the United States General Assembly, via resolution, 

designated March 22 of each year as World Water Day; 

Whereas although water resources are renewable, differences 

in availability of water resources exist due to variations 

in seasonal and annual precipitation in different parts of 

the world; 

Whereas although water is the most widely occurring substance on earth, only 2.53 percent of all water is freshwater and the remainder is salt water; 

Whereas freshwater resources are further reduced by various 

forms of industrial, chemical, human, and agricultural 

pollution; 

Whereas the drainage of wetlands for agriculture and the dissipation of water sources by land clearance lead to further exacerbation of water scarcity; 

Whereas, according to the United Nations, by the middle of 

this century, at worst, seven billion people in 60 countries 

will be water-scarce; 
2

•HRES 658 EH 

Whereas the poor are the most affected by water scarcity, 

with 50 percent of the populations of developing countries exposed to polluted water sources; 

Whereas water-related diseases are among the most common 

causes of illness and death, afflicting primarily the poor 

in developing countries; 

Whereas the estimated mortality rate due to diseases transmitted by water and sanitation is five million people per 

year; 

Whereas initiatives that promote access to safe drinking 

water and sanitation that prevents contaminants from infiltrating fresh drinking water supplies are vital tools in 

raising the awareness of the importance of freshwater to 

the quality of life; and 

Whereas freshwater is vital to the development, sustainability, 

and progression of all humanity: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals and ideals of World Water 

Day; 

(2) recognizes the importance of conserving and 

managing water resources for sustainable development, 

including environmental integrity and the eradication of 

poverty and hunger, and human health and overall quality of life in the United States and across the globe; and 

(3) encourages the people of the United States to 

observe World Water Day with appropriate recognition, 

ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the 
3

•HRES 658 EH 

importance of water and water conservation to humanity.

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 34.3a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (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 residential and commercial mortgage
loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),
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, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

February 4, 2016

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60711

Summary Calendar

 

ANDREA CRISTINA PINEDA-ACOSTA DE CEDILLO,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A28-601-439

- - - - - - - - - -

May 23, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andrea Cristina Pineda-Acosta De Cedillo (“Pineda”) asserts

that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion

in denying her petition to reopen deportation proceedings to

apply for suspension of deportation. Pineda argues that the

deportation would result in extreme hardship. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1254(a)(1)(1997 Supp.). 
No. 96-60711

- 2 -

 We review the BIA’s findings of no extreme hardship under a

strict standard for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Cordero v.

INS, 819 F.2d 558, 562-63 (5th Cir. 1987). Procedurally, our

review is to determine that the BIA considered the factors

individually and cumulatively. Id. at 563. Substantively, we

may find an abuse of discretion only when the hardship is such

that any reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the

hardship is extreme. Id. 

 After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the

BIA did not abuse its discretion, either procedurally or

substantively, in determining that no extreme hardship existed

with the deportation of Pineda. 

 The petition for review is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report**


**** **Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Criticare
      Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
      information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Date:
      February 9, 2006 /s/
      Emil H.
      Soika


Emil H. Soika, Chief Executive Officer











Date:
      February 9,
      2006 /s/
      Joel D.
      Knudson


Joel
      D. Knudson, Vice President - Finance











This
      Certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 350]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ350.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1965]]

Public Law 109-350
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, as the ``Larry Cox Post 
            Office''. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 2006 -  [H.R. 5434]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LARRY COX POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Larry Cox Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Larry Cox 
Post Office''.

    Approved October 13, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5434:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 12, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 73.24 Prohibitions. ( a ) Except as specifically approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no shipment of special nuclear material shall be made in passenger aircraft in excess of (1) 20 grams or 20 curies, whichever is less, of plutonium or uranium-233, or (2) 350 grams of uranium-235 (contained in uranium enriched to 20 percent or more in the U-235 isotope).
( b ) Unless otherwise approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no licensee may make shipments of special nuclear material in which individual shipments are less than a formula quantity, but the total quantity in shipments in transit at the same time could equal or exceed a formula quantity, unless either of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The licensee shall confirm and log the arrival at the final destination of each individual shipment and retain the log for three years from the date of the last entry in the log. The licensee shall also schedule shipments to ensure that the total quantity for two or more shipments in transit at the same time does not equal or exceed the formula quantity, or
( 2 ) Physical protection in accordance with the requirements of §§ 73.20, 73.25, and 73.26 is provided by the licensee for such shipments as appropriate so that the total quantity of special nuclear material in the remaining shipments not so protected, and in transit at the same time, does not equal or exceed a formula quantity.
[44 FR 68188, Nov. 28, 1979, as amended at 53 FR 19257, May 27, 1988]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81543-81544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32538]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-132554-08]
RIN 1545-BI16


Additional Rules Regarding Hybrid Retirement Plans; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 81544]]

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (REG-132554-08) that was published in the Federal Register 
on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64197) providing guidance relating 
to certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that apply to hybrid 
defined benefit pension plans.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil S. Sandhu, Lauson C. Green, or 
Linda S. F. Marshall at (202) 622-6090 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under 
section 411 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132554-08) 
contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of 
clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(REG-132554-08), which was the subject of FR Doc. 2010-25942, is 
corrected as follows:


Sec.  1.411(b)(5)-1  [Corrected]

    On page 64214, column 3, Sec.  1.411(b)(5)-1(e)(2)(iii)(A), line 
19, the language ``change the rate of interest crediting'' is corrected 
to read ``change the interest crediting rate''.

Guy R. Traynor,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-32538 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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 The  Topps  Company,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 27, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Arthur
T.  Shorin,  Chairman  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   ss.1350,   as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Arthur T. Shorin
                                                ----------------------
                                                     Arthur T. Shorin
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



October 6, 2005
SCHEDULE



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
 Schedule 
 Setting Forth Information on 
 Two Additional and Substantially Identical Hotel Lease Agreements 
 (Substantially
Identical to Exhibit 10.10 filed herewith) 
 Each Hotel Lease Agreement (a “Lease”) has the same form as the filing specified above. Substantive
differences from that filing are limited to those specified below in Parts A, B and C: 
 A. FRANCHISES, PARTIES AND MANAGERS 
  

									
	 Hotel
	 	 Franchise
 (Section 7.2(b))
	 	 Lessor
 (Preamble)
	 	 Lessee
 (Preamble)
	 	 Manager
 (Definition Section)

					
	San Diego, California	 	Hilton Garden Inn®	 	Apple Seven Hospitality Ownership, Inc.	 	Apple Seven Hospitality Management, Inc.	 	Inn Ventures, Inc.
					
	Brownsville, Texas	 	Courtyard by Marriott®	 	Apple Seven Hospitality Texas, L.P.	 	Apple Seven Services, L.P.	 	Texas Western Management Partners, L.P.

 B. ANNUAL BASE RENTS AND LEASE COMMENCEMENT DATES 
  

						
	 Hotel
	  	 Annual Base Rent
 (Exhibit 3.1(a) to Lease)
	  	 Commencement Date
 (Exhibit 2.1(a) to Lease)

	  	  
	 San Diego, California
	  	$	2,633,270	  	May 9, 2006
	 Brownsville, Texas
	  	 	893,196	  	June 6, 2006

 [See Part C beginning on next page] 







 C. SUITE REVENUE BREAKPOINTS (Exhibit 3.1(b) to Lease) 
 San Diego, California 
  

																																		
	 	  	Prorated 06	  	2006	  	2007	  	2008	  	2009	  	2010	  	2011	  	2012	  	2013	  	2014	  	2015
	 Yearly
 Breakpoint
	  	$	1,364,811	  	$	2,101,924	  	$	2,244,745	  	$	2,379,430	  	$	2,450,813	  	$	2,524,337	  	$	2,600,067	  	$	2,678,069	  	$	2,758,411	  	$	2,841,163	  	$	2,926,398

 Brownsville, Texas 
  

																																		
	 	  	Prorated 06	  	2006	  	2007	  	2008	  	2009	  	2010	  	2011	  	2012	  	2013	  	2014	  	2015
	 Yearly
 Breakpoint
	  	$	167,382	  	$	292,318	  	$	301,088	  	$	310,120	  	$	319,424	  	$	329,006	  	$	338,877	  	$	349,043	  	$	359,514	  	$	370,300	  	$	381,409