alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 33,693

5 LORIE ESTELLE CAMPBELL

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DON ̃A ANA COUNTY

8 Darren M. Kugler, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General

11 Santa Fe, NM

12 for Appellee

13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

14 Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 FRY, Judge.
2

1 {1} The State appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the indictment

2 against Defendant for the charge of commercial burglary. This Court issued a stay

3 before addressing the merits of the State’s appeal, pending our decision in State v.

4 Archuleta, _____-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert.

5 granted, 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26,

6 2015), the first of many cases raising the same issue relative to the charge of

7 commercial burglary. Relying on our opinion in Archuleta, we lifted the stay and

8 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm on December

9 23, 2014. [Ct. App. file] The State has filed a response, objecting to our notice and

10 requesting that we hold this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable

11 opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending

12 appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta. [MIO 1-2] We have provided the State

13 with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay or other

14 remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta. Thus, pursuant to

15 Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C) (“A petition for a

16 writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order

17 granting the petition does not affect the precedential value of an opinion of the Court

18 of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”). 
3

1 {2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed

2 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1] We continue to believe that there are no

3 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in

4 Archuleta. For the reasons stated in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order

5 granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the commercial burglary charge.

6 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 __________________________________

9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 __________________________

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

13 __________________________

14 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
DATOS

RÁPIDOS

Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU.

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

Para información más completa:

Administración de 

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional

Andamio de Soporte 

Consejos de Seguridad

Los andamios de soporte consisten de una o más plataformas sostenidas por vigas voladizas (estabilizadoras),

abrazaderas, postes, patas, montantes rectos, marcos o

soportes rígidos similares.

Para la prevención/protección contra caídas, se requieren

barandas o sistemas personales de prevención de caídas

para los empleados sobre plataformas a 10 o más pies de

alto. 

Las plataformas y entarimados de trabajo tienen que estar

entablados cercano a las barandas.

El entablado (Los tablones) ha (han) de estar solapado (s)

sobre un soporte al menos 6 pulgadas, pero no más de 12

pulgadas. 

Las patas, postes, marcos y montantes rectos tienen que

estar sobre placas de soporte y durmientes, o sobre

cimientes confiables, y estar aplomados y reforzados.

La capacitación para los usuarios de andamios tiene que incluir:

• Los riesgos específicos del tipo de andamio que se está 

usando, 

• La carga máxima prevista y capacidad del andamio,

• El reconocimiento y reporte de defectos,

• Los riesgos de caídas,

• Los riesgos eléctricos, incluyendo las líneas aéreas, 

• Riesgos causados por objetos que caen,

• Otros riesgos que se puedan encontrar.

Completamente Entablada

Placas de soporte

Durmientes

Barandas

y Tabla de

capellada

(o de pie)

Crucetas Aplomado

Vertical

Escalera de Acceso

Puerta de 

Acceso
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 .
  1.
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Date: May 9, 2007
    
    /s/ J. Marcus ScrudderJ. MARCUS SCRUDDERChief Financial Officer
#### Ahmad Hbouss et al., Appellants, v Bank of Montreal et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 520]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered August 16, 2004, dismissing the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 19, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The motion court properly considered all relevant factors *(see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 1108 [1985]) and properly concluded that New York was not a convenient forum for litigating the instant dispute. This case has no discernible connection to New York but a very substantial nexus to Canada. The dispute arises out of a credit agreement negotiated in Canada between Canadian companies, and which is subject to Quebec and Canadian federal law. The alleged wrongful actions all took place in Quebec, Canada, and the action seeks damages in Canadian dollars. Moreover, Canada is available as an alternative forum and, indeed, plaintiffs have already availed themselves of the Canadian courts in a matter related to the instant dispute *(see Phat Tan Nguyen v Banque Indosuez,*19 AD3d 292 [2005]; *Shin-Etsu Chem Co., Ltd. v ICICI Bank Ltd.,*9 AD3d 171 [2004]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.
§ 55.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in § 1.6694-3 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78459, Dec. 22, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SIX MONTH YEAR-TO-DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC. 1997
10Q FOR THE SECOND QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       9,624,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,000
<PP&E>                                       1,966,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,333,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,613,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          441,000
<BONDS>                                      2,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,642,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,613,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,972,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             813,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,427,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,427,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,427,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 21

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

for budgetary reform by requiring the reduction of the deficit, a balanced

Federal budget, and the repayment of the national debt.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide for budgetary reform by requiring the

reduction of the deficit, a balanced Federal budget, and

the repayment of the national debt.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by
2

•HJ 21 IH

1 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with2 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica3 tion:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE —

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. Except as provided by this Article, be6 ginning with the fiscal year ø1997¿ or for the first fiscal

7 year beginning after ratification, whichever is later, the

8 President shall submit a budget of revenues and outlays

9 to Congress, and Congress shall adopt a budget that re10 duces the deficit existing the year prior to ratification of

11 this Article by not less than 16.7 percent per year in order

12 to balance the budget within 6 fiscal years.

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. Except as provided by this Article, be14 ginning with the 7th year beginning after ratification and

15 for every year thereafter, budgeted outlays shall not ex16 ceed budgeted revenues.

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. Beginning with the 7th year after ratifi18 cation, the actual revenues shall exceed actual outlays in

19 order to provide for the reduction of the gross Federal

20 debt which is outstanding at the end of the 6th year after

21 ratification.

22 ‘‘The amount of such reduction will be equal to the

23 amount required to amortize the debt over the next 24

24 years, in order to repay the entire debt by the end of the

25 30th year after ratification.
3

•HJ 21 IH

1 ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress may waive the provisions of

2 this Article (except for section 5) for any fiscal year in

3 which a declaration of war is in effect.

4 ‘‘SECTION 5. No bill to increase revenues shall be5 come law unless approved by a majority of the total mem6 bership of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.

7 ‘‘SECTION 6. Congress shall review actual revenues

8 on a quarterly basis and adjust appropriations to assure

9 compliance with this Article.

10 ‘‘SECTION 7. For purposes of this Article, revenues

11 shall include all revenues of the United States excluding

12 borrowing and outlays shall include all outlays of the

13 United States excluding repayment of debt principal.’’.

Æ
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 92

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit

the terms of office for Representatives and Senators in Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 1995

Ms. DANNER introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to limit the terms of office for Representatives

and Senators in Congress.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 92 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘No person may serve more than four consecutive

3 terms as Representative or two consecutive terms as Sen4 ator, not counting any term that began before the adop5 tion of this article of amendment.’’.

Æ
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 184

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to further

protect religious freedom, including the right of students in public schools

to pray without government sponsorship or compulsion, by clarifying

the proper construction of any prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 16, 1996

Mr. ARMEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to further protect religious freedom, including the

right of students in public schools to pray without government sponsorship or compulsion, by clarifying the

proper construction of any prohibition on laws respecting

an establishment of religion.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by
2

•HJ 184 IH

1 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with2 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica3 tion:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE —

5 ‘‘In order to secure the right of the people to acknowl6 edge and serve God according to the dictates of conscience,

7 neither the United States nor any State shall deny any

8 person equal access to a benefit, or otherwise discriminate

9 against any person, on account of religious belief, expres10 sion, or exercise. This amendment does not authorize gov11 ernment to coerce or inhibit religious belief, expression,

12 or exercise.’’.

Æ
PUBLIC LAW 111–381—JAN. 4, 2011 124 STAT. 4133 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3903: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 111–371 (Comm. on Indian Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 22, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–381 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh 

Pueblo. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. OHKAY OWINGEH PUEBLO LEASING AUTHORITY. 

Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 

1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sentence by 

inserting ‘‘and lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo’’ 

after ‘‘of land on the Devils Lake Sioux Reservation,’’. 

Approved January 4, 2011. 

Jan. 4, 2011 

[S. 3903] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
**Exhibit 34.9**

**KATZ**

**SAPPER**

**& MILLER**

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2017 Compliance by Park Bridge LenderServices LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, excluding those criteria determined by management and noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions coveredby this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with 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. Ourexamination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period,and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samplesmay not have included servicing activities related to each asset backed transaction included in the Platform. An examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above orsubsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities 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 legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31,2017, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects. 

/s/ Katz, Sapper & Miller LLP 

New York, NY 

February 15, 2018
#### § 48.4041-18 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., Destrehan Street Plant in St. Louis, Missouri, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On January 16, 2009, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

All employees of DOE, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked in the Uranium Division at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., Destrehan Street Plant in St. Louis, Missouri, from January 1, 1958 to December 31, 1958, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.

                    This designation will become effective on February 15, 2009, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to the SEC.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV*.                    

Dated: January 26, 2009.

Christine M. Branche,

Acting Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. E9-1955 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-17-P
#### Maureen Scofield, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Douglas B. Moreland, M.D., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[803 NYS2d 499]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered July 7, 2004. The order denied the motion of plaintiff Maureen Scofield to set aside the jury verdict or, alternatively, grant a new trial.

*1082It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*155 AD2d 435 [1989]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.