alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent, v Orrett Spence, Respondent. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Proposed Additional Appellant, et al., Proposed Additional Respondents.

[805 NYS2d 625]

*467In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, J.H.O.), dated March 8, 2004, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing on the petition and a new determination thereafter; and it is further,

Ordered that the arbitration is temporarily stayed pending the new hearing and determination.

At a hearing conducted on March 8, 2004, before a Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter the JHO) to whom the matter was referred, the alleged insurer of the offending vehicle, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), began to elicit testimony from its employee regarding whether the collision giving rise to the underlying claim was intentional or staged and whether it was related to other fraudulent accident claims. Before the direct examination of that witness was concluded, the JHO granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration on the ground that State Farm did not timely disclaim coverage under its policy as against its insured, and determined that State Farm was obligated to provide coverage under a policy issued to its insured. This was error.

Timely notice of an intent to disclaim pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (d) is unnecessary when a claim does not fall within the coverage terms of an insurance policy *(see Markevics v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*97 NY2d 646, 648-649 [2001]; *Matter of Worcester Ins. Co. v Bettenhauser,*95 NY2d 185, 188-189 [2000]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Massre,*14 AD3d 610 [2005]; *Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v McDonald,*6 AD3d 614 [2004]; *Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co.,*293 AD2d 751 [2002]). Stated differently, insurers are not precluded by an untimely disclaimer from asserting a lack of coverage where the injuries did not arise from a covered accident *(see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., supra; Town of Oyster Bay v Employers Ins. of Wausau,*269 AD2d 387, 389 [2000]). As State Farm was endeavoring to adduce evidence of such fraud which may have established that the occurrence or collision in question was not covered under its policy, the Supreme Court incorrectly terminated the hearing and granted the petition on the basis of untimeliness of disclaimer. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### § 41.4483-4 Application of exemptions.

Any exemption from the tax on the use of a highway motor vehicle has application only with respect to the use of such highway motor vehicle and not with respect to the highway motor vehicle as such. Furthermore, such exemption is subject to those provisions of paragraph (c) of § 41.4481-1 relating to proration of the tax and to the effect of an exempt use of a highway motor vehicle after a taxable use has been made. Thus, if a taxable use is made of a highway motor vehicle at any time in a taxable period, the tax is imposed on the use of such vehicle for such taxable period, computed from the first day of the month in which such taxable use occurred, even though at some time in the same taxable period, before or after such taxable use occurred, the use of the vehicle may have been, or may be, exempt. For example, if a highway motor vehicle is operated exclusively by a State in the period July 1 through September 10 of a taxable period, use of such vehicle in such period is exempt from the tax. However, if a taxable use of the vehicle is made on September 11 of such taxable period, the tax imposed on the use of such vehicle for such taxable period is computed from September 1. On the other hand, if a taxable use of the vehicle is made at any time in July of the taxable period, the tax imposed on the use of such vehicle for such taxable period is computed from July 1, even though the vehicle may be operated exclusively by a State in every other month of such period.

[T.D. 6743, 29 FR 7931, June 23, 1964. Redesignated by T.D. 8027, 50 FR 21248, May 23, 1985]
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 14

- 00348

- CV

IN RE AN THONY G. HEREFORD, J R., RELATOR

OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

October 17 , 2014


### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Pending before the court is Anthony G. Hereford, Jr.’s (Hereford) Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus. In it he requests that we “order the 140th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas,” to “consider and rule on the properly filed Motion for Speedy

Trial

. . . and Motion for Appointment of Counsel . . . .” We dismiss the petition without prejudice to its re

- filing

. Hereford, a prisoner, s eeks to proceed as an indigent and has not complied with

all the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
See Act of June 29, 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3, § 12.01(a), 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws
116, 161 (amending Chapter 14 effective January 1, 2012, to make it applicable to
actions, including appeals and original proceedings, brought by indigent inmates in2

appellate courts) (current version at T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 14.002 (West Supp. 2014)); Douglas v. Moffett , 418 S.W.3d 336, 338

- 39 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (discussing amendment and prior law). Th at is, he f ailed to detail , via affidavit, the prior actions or lawsuits, if any, he has filed; such is required by § 14.004(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code

. T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 14.004(a) (West Supp. 2014). The omission was brought to his attention via written correspondence from this court. In that correspondence, he was afforded opportunity to correct the matter by October 6, 2014 , and was told that the cause would be dismissed if he did not. That date lapsed, and Hereford has y et to comply with the

statute. Because a r elator's fai lure to comply with Chapter 14 renders a petition for writ of mandamus subject to dismissal, In re Johnson , No. 07

- 13

- 00259

- CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3456 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Ma rch 28, 2014, orig. proce eding), we dismiss Hereford’s petition for writ of mandamus

. It is so ordered.

Per Curia m
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,075,949
<SECURITIES>                                 2,086,849
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,330,747
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,095,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,485,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,095,563
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               158,531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               429,256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,245,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,245,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,245,256)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (59.71)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (59.71)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
www.gpo.gov

### §277a. Investigations of commission; construction of works or projects

The Secretary of State, acting through the American Commissioner, International Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico, is further authorized to conduct technical and other investigations relating to the defining, demarcation, fencing, or monumentation of the land and water boundary between the United States and Mexico, to flood control, water resources, conservation, and utilization of water, sanitation and prevention of pollution, channel rectification, stabilization, drainage of transboundary storm waters, and other related matters upon the international boundary between the United States and Mexico; and to construct and maintain fences, monuments and other demarcations of the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, and sewer systems, water systems, and electric light, power and gas systems crossing the international border, and to continue such work and operations through the American Commissioner as are now in progress and are authorized by law.

The President is authorized and empowered to construct, operate, and maintain on the Rio Grande River below Fort Quitman, Texas, any and all works or projects which are recommended to the President as the result of such investigations and by the President are deemed necessary and proper.

(May 13, 1924, ch. 153, §2, 43 Stat. 118; Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 381, §2, 44 Stat. 1403; Aug. 19, 1935, ch. 561, 49 Stat. 660; Pub. L. 101–246, title IV, §412(b)(2), Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 70.)

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–246 inserted reference to drainage of transboundary storm waters.

1935—Act Aug. 19, 1935, amended section generally.

1927—Act Mar. 3, 1927, increased appropriation from $20,000 to $50,000.

#### Change of Name

International Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico, American section, to which powers, duties, and functions of International Water Commission, United States and Mexico, American section, were transferred by act June 30, 1932, ch. 314, §510, 47 Stat. 417, reconstituted as International Boundary and Water Commission by Water Treaty of 1944.

#### Repeals

Act Mar. 3, 1927, cited as a credit to this section, was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 647.

#### Water Resources Planning

Jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, unaffected by Water Resources Planning Act, see section 1962–1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 277c, 277d of this title.
### The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3818

___________ Delanor Berry; Jack Bennett; * Elmer Jackson; John Hutson; * Perry Scroggins; Ricky Armstrong,* *

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * The City of Little Rock, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 3, 1996 Filed: August 23, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pl aintiffs appeal from the district court's dismissal of their 4 2 1 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, in whic h theyc hallenged the constitutionality of Local Ordinance 16,659 and it s application. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs , we c onclude that the district court's dismissal of the complaint wa s correct, and that an opinion on these matters would have no precedential value. According ly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## 1999 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-16-1999 

# I n R e: F irs t M e r ch. Accept. C or p . v . JC B r a d for d & C o

.
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :
D ock e t 98-5377

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1999 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: F ir s t M e r ch . Ac c e pt. C or p . v . JC B r a d for d & C o
. " (1999). 1999 D e cisio n s
. P a pe r 324. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999/324

### Filed December 16, 1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 98-5377

IN RE: FIRST MERCHANTS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Debtor

v.
J. C. BRADFORD & CO., Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. No. 97-cv-01500) District Judge: Hon. Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
Before: SLOVITER, NYGAARD and McKEE, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in this case,fi led December 14, 1999, be amended as follows:
Page 2, footnote 1 - substitute for this foo tnote, the following:
The District Court did not refer this Chapte r 11 case to the Bankruptcy Court.
Change "Bankruptcy Court" to "District Court " on the following pages:
Page 2, line 24 Page 3, lines 12, 14, 28 and 35 Page 7, lines 1, 4 and 28 Page 8, line 3

### Page 12, line 6 from bottom of page

Page 16, lines 7 and 19.
Page 4, line 28 - change "his" to "her".
Page 4, line 32 - change "He" to "She".
By the Court,
/ s / Dolores K. Sloviter
Circuit Judge

Dated: December 16, 1999

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2
exv10w44



 






Exhibit 10.44




Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation for 2007



At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 6, 2006, the Board of Directors of Aqua America, Inc., upon the
recommendation of its Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee, approved the following directors’
compensation for 2007 for the non-employee directors of Aqua America, Inc.: (1) an annual cash retainer of $17,500; (2)
an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee and Corporate
Governance Committee of $5,000; (3) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee of $7,500; (4) a
meeting fee of $1,500 for each meeting of the Board of Directors; (5) a meeting fee of $1,250 per meeting for meetings
of the Audit Committee and a meeting fee of $1,000 per meeting for meetings of the other Committees; and (6) an annual
stock grant to directors of 1,500 shares payable on the first of the month following the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders. All directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board or
Committee meetings. Directors are eligible to defer part or all of their fees under the Company’s Director Deferral
Plan. Amounts deferred accrue interest at the prime interest rate plus 1.0%.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DONTE LAMONT BROWN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:05-cr-00053-WMN-1; 1:07-cv-02858-WMN) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Donte Lamont Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Donte Lamont Brown seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
% Predict blood CPY and urine TCPY levels
% Drinking water concentrations from Bulb Onion_GAOnion_WirringSTD_Reservoir_Parent_TSadj.xlsx
% From 12/31/1964 to 3/31/1965
% Infants 
% Cecilia Tan
% January 22, 2016

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;			% Set body weight to a fixed value
BWST=4.85;	 % Set body weight to 4.85 kg for infants 
PREG=0;			% Not pregnant
DT(1) = 0.0;
DORAL(1) = 0.0;
TSTOP=2904;	%Simulation time

%TO READ IN DOSES FROM AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET. must be saved as .xls
VOLUME=0.68557  % Water consumption volume in L/DAY
EVENTS=6        % Drinking frequency per day
DT = xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "infant", "A2:A728") ; % Dosing Times
AMTCDOSE=xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "infant", "B2:B728")*VOLUME/EVENTS; % Dose in ug/l 

% Output RBC AChE, venous blood conc for cpf, urine TCPY conc, venous blood conc for oxon 
prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy cvo	
start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5]; % Output unit ug/L for concentrations
save mytable @file='onion_infant_01222016.txt' @format=ascii
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
     10-Q OF BERLITZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
     2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         38,757
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  52,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,902
<INVENTORY>                                    10,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,550
<PP&E>                                         76,726
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 687,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,114
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,005
<OTHER-SE>                                     330,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   687,651
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,007
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,773
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,784)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,784)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.29)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


List of Institutions of Higher Education Ineligible for Federal 
Funds

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document is published to identify institutions of higher 
education that are ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a 
determination by the Secretary of Defense that the institution 
prohibits or in effect prevents military recruiter access to the 
campus, students on campus or student directory information. It also 
implements the requirements set forth in section 983 of title 10, 
United States Code, and 32 CFR part 216. The institutions of higher 
education so identified are:

Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont.
William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota.

ADDRESSES: Director for Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4000 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Colonel Rose Jourdan, (703) 
695-5529.

    Dated: July 29, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-18827 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P