alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
606 P.2d 823

#### Christopher MACK, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jerry BARNEY, Rex Barney and Gayle Barney, Defendants/Appellants.

No. 2 CA-CIV 3365.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1980.

Review Denied Feb. 13, 1980.

*6Richardson & Mortensen by Wilford R. Richardson, Safford, for plaintiff/appellee.

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by Jack E. McCall, Phoenix, for defendants/appellants.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

Defendants appeal from an order granting plaintiff a new trial following a defense verdict on the ground that the jury should not have been instructed on assumption of risk. The order is affirmed.

The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the giving of the assumption of risk instruction, *McGriff v. McGriff,*114 Ariz. 323, 560 P.2d 1230 (1977), establishes that plaintiff, then 19, and defendant Jerry Barney, 15, were deer hunting when Jerry slipped and fell, his rifle discharged, and plaintiff was shot in both ankles. Plaintiff knew that Jerry was carrying his gun with a bullet in the chamber and that if Jerry dropped the gun or fell it could go off. He did not check to see whether the safety was on or off, but “kind of assumed” that it was on.

The elements of assumption of risk are:

(1) There must be a risk of harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s conduct or by the condition of the defendant’s land or chattels;

(2) Plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the particular risk and appreciate its magnitude. (General knowledge of “a danger” is not sufficient.)

(3) Plaintiff must voluntarily choose to enter or remain within the area of the risk under circumstances that manifest his willingness to accept that particular risk. *McGriff,*supra,114 Ariz. at 325, 560 P.2d at 1232.

Unless plaintiff knew or did not care whether the safety was off, his continuing to hunt with Jerry while the latter was carrying his gun cocked and loaded might constitute contributory negligence but did not justify an instruction on assumption of risk. The evidence being to the contrary, the jury should not have been instructed on assumption of risk and the motion for new trial was properly granted.

Affirmed.

HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3410 *Proteus* spp. (Weil-Felix) serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification. Proteus* spp. (Weil-Felix) serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera, including antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye (immunofluorescent reagents), derived from the bacterium *Proteus vulgaris* used in agglutination tests (a specific type of antigen-antibody reaction) for the detection of antibodies to rickettsia (virus-like bacteria) in serum. Test results aid in the diagnosis of diseases caused by bacteria belonging to the genus *Rickettsiae* and provide epidemiological information on these diseases. Rickettsia are generally transmitted by arthropods (e.g., ticks and mosquitoes) and produce infections in humans characterized by rash and fever (e.g., typhus fever, spotted fever, Q fever, and trench fever).
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 25047, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38792, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1190 Distometer. ( a ) *Identification.* A distometer is a device intended to measure the distance between the cornea and a corrective lens during refraction to help measure the change of the visual image when a lens is in place.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35603, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38810, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3820 Root canal filling resin. ( a ) *Identification.* A root canal filling resin is a device composed of material, such as methylmethacrylate, intended for use during endodontic therapy to fill the root canal of a tooth.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II if chloroform is not used as an ingredient in the device.
( 2 ) Class III if chloroform is used as an ingredient in the device.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any root canal filling resin described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to a root canal filling resin described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other root canal filling resin shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 50707, Sept. 27, 1996]
#### R. C. SMITH *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5469

451 S. W. 2d 744

Opinion delivered March 16, 1970

[Rehearing denied April *20,*1970.]

*E. V. Trimble,*for appellant.

*266
      *Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

This is an appeal by R. C. Smith from a robbery conviction. No brief was filed by appellant. The motion for new trial alleges that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, that the conviction is in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions, and that he was convicted without positive identification, and without corroborative testimony. In accordance with our Rule 11, the Attorney General has abstracted the record and properly briefed those assignments of error which may appear to be beneficial to appellant.

The prosecuting witness and the accused were the only witnesses. Waydeen Cochran testified that in January 1968 she operated a grocery store in Little Rock; that R. C. Smith forced her at gunpoint to open her cash register, from which Smith took between seven hundred and eight hundred dollars; and that within approximately one hour the police confronted her with Smith and she made positive identification.

R. C. Smith testified on direct examination that he was acquainted by sight with the prosecuting witness; that he knew the location of her store; and that he positively did not rob her. On cross-examination it was brought out that he did, on the day in question, enter the store to make a purchase; that he parked his car in front of the store and left the motor running; that as he left by way of the front door a policeman stopped him and after brief questioning apparently took him to the station. Further investigation revealed that he had on his person some $200 in cash and a pistol. Appellant asserted that the. money consisted of salary he had just drawn and that he had recently bought the pistol for his own protection because "I had been robbed two or three times.”

In our summary of the testimony we have not *267omitted any evidence which would shed light on the* points listed by appellant in his motion for new trial. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and to meet the test of our robbery statute. No evidence was offered which would even imply that any constitutional rights were violated. From the summarized evidence it is apparent that the assertion that the accused was not properly identified is without merit. The defense of lack of corroboration is likewise of no benefit to appellant because Waydeen Cochran was not an accomplice.

Affirmed.
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC,as Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator, andComputershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated: March 13, 2024

 

 

/s/Anthony Sfarra

AnthonySfarra 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                                                         August 4, 2003


Biopure Corporation
11 Hurley Street
Cambridge, MA 02141

           Re: Lock-up of Securities

Gentlemen:

     I am a director of Biopure Corporation ("Biopure"). I hold 85,868 shares of
Class A Common Stock of Biopure ("Common Stock") together with associated Common
Stock warrants to purchase 17,161 additional shares (collectively, the
"Securities") which were issued in an offering on March 25, 2003 (the
"Offering"). You intend to seek stockholder approval for sales to insiders in
the Offering at the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders. At your request, in the
interim, I agree that the Securities shall not be sold, transferred, assigned,
pledged or hypothecated, nor will I vote any of the Common Stock included in the
Securities. In addition, if the Company pays a dividend on its Common Stock,
dividends on the Securities will be withheld.


                                                  Very truly yours,



                                                  David N. Judelson
Exhibit 13.1

Annual Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Santander UK Group Holdings plc (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2016 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form
20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: 1 March, 2017 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Nathan Bostock     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Nathan Bostock         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Dated: 1 March, 2017 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Antonio Roman      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Antonio Roman          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and the Statements of Revenue and Expenses and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000814323
<NAME> DATRONIC EQUIPMENT INCOME FUND XVI, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,748,910
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,942,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,786,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,942,395
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,376
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (58,257)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (156,519)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.10


















RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P.
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-WPG



Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 24,
2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period
and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review,
Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.







March 15, 2016







|               | 
|-------------- | 
|BRIAN SMITH    | 
|Vice President |
## Williams , Rene e (OST) 1>oCk^^ : bOf - O'^ Tf^^? - 2- ^ V" ^ From : Pegg yMosso w[moose_r n @ hotmail.com ] Sent : Sunday , Augus t 15 , 201 0 8:5 0 P M To : supervisor@town.massena.ny.us ; anicola@twcny.rr.com ; EA S (OST ) Subject : lette ro fsuppor t fo rcapeai r Mr . Gray , Mr . Nicola , Mr . DeVany , Jus t a quic k

not e t o le t yo u kno wI a m definatel yi n favo ro fkeepin g Cap e ai rservic e t o Albany . Alban yi s a on e hou rtri p wit h easyconnection s anywhere . Th e airpor t i s smaller , les s congested , an d mor e use rfriendl ytha n th e large rBosto n airport . A s well , fro m Massena , mos t people , (includin g myself ) wil l eithe rb e goin g sout h o rwes t fo rthei rvacatio n get-aways , an d i t jus t doesn' t mak e sens e t o m e t o g o fro m Massen a al l th e wa yt o th e eas t coas t ( Bosto n ) an d the n back-trac k bac k t o th e sout h o rwest . I t i s muc h mor e direc t fo rm yflight s t o Louisiana , Texas , Clevelan d an d Nort h Carolin a t o connec t I n Albany . I appreciat e you rconsideratio n an d loo k forwar d t o continue d servic e o n Capeai rflight s t o Albany . Sincerely , Pegg yMossow
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7943 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7943

   To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide law enforcement 
 authority to the Inspector General of the United States International 
                    Development Finance Corporation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2024

 Mr. Castro of Texas (for himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide law enforcement 
 authority to the Inspector General of the United States International 
                    Development Finance Corporation.

    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 ``Enhancing Development Finance 
Corporation Oversight Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
              UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE 
              CORPORATION.

    Section 406(f)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``International Development Finance Corporation,'' before 
``Environmental''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.63


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                           STOCK RESTRICTION AGREEMENT


        THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") to the Stock Restriction
Agreement entered into by and between OMNIPOINT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and GEORGE F. SCHMITT (the "Employee"), as of
October 1, 1995 (the "Stock Restriction Agreement"), is made as of the 21st day
of June, 1999.

                                    RECITALS

        WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2 of the Stock Restriction Agreement, the
Company has certain rights to purchase shares of common stock of the Company
from the Employee at a specified price for a period of time following the
Employee's termination of employment (the "Purchase Option"); and

        WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to modify
the provisions of the Purchase Option with respect to any termination of
employment of the Employee for a reason other than cause; and

        WHEREAS, the Employee finds the proposed modifications to the Purchase
Option desirable.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual
covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the Company and the Employee
hereby agree as follows:

        Effective as of the date of this Amendment, the table set forth in
Section 2(a) of the Stock Restriction Agreement shall read as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           ------------------------------------- --------------------------------
                                                        PERCENTAGE OF SHARES
            IF CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT OCCURS:      SUBJECT TO PURCHASE OPTION:
           ------------------------------------- --------------------------------
<S>         <C>                                   <C>
                On or after June 21, 1999                        0%
           ------------------------------------- --------------------------------
</TABLE>

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the day and year first above written.

                                      OMNIPOINT CORPORATION

                                      By:
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                      EMPLOYEE

                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      George F. Schmitt