alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert M. Sochinski, Appellant, v Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 269]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered February 9, 1995 in Schoharie County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured when airborne particles caused by sandblasting at a highway construction site entered the open window of plaintiff’s motor vehicle and lodged in his eye. No motor vehicle accident resulted, for plaintiff was able to bring his vehicle to a safe stop. His subsequent claim for no-fault benefits made upon defendant, the insurer of his motor vehicle, was rejected on the ground that his injuries did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle *(see,*Insurance Law § 5102 [b]). In the instant action brought by plaintiff for a determination declaring his entitlement to such benefits, Supreme Court granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Insurance Law § 5102 (b) provides that first-party no-fault benefits are to be paid "to reimburse a person for basic economic loss on account of personal injury arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle”. To qualify for payment, the claimant must show that the insured motor vehicle was the "actual instrumentality” which produced the injury, that is, the motor vehicle must have been the proximate cause of the claimant’s damages *{Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71*AD2d 1004, 1005).

Manifestly, plaintiff’s motor vehicle was not the proximate cause of his eye injury; that would have occurred even if plaintiff had not been in his motor vehicle at the time the injury was inflicted. Plaintiff’s use and operation of his motor vehicle being "wholly incidental” to the event which produced his injury *(Lancer Ins. Co. v Peterson,*175 AD2d 239, 240; *see, United Servs. Auto. Assn, v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*75 AD2d 1022), Supreme Court properly concluded that defendant could not be held liable for the payment of first-party no-fault benefits *(see, Locascio v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.,*127 AD2d 746, 747, *lv denied 70*NY2d 616; *cf, Matter of Pierce [Utica Mut. Ins. Co.],*110 AD2d 1023).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Case Financial, Inc., (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Eric A. Alden, the principal accounting officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13a-14(b)
            or 15d-14(b) 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.

Date: January 29, 2004

                                       /s/ Eric A. Alden
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Eric A. Alden
                                       Principal Accounting Officer
#### Samuel W. Nash, *Respondent, v.*White’s Bank of Buffalo, *Appellant.*

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Suspended Solids Standard Method 2540D (1991)

( Dried at 103

- 105°C )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or

Range: Data Reviewer

signature: Date:

Instructions : Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment”

section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: Requiremen t s with a * are project requirements not specific to SM

2540D.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex

Airb ills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab

Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample

Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a pa ge copied

from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Total Suspended Solids Standard Method 2540D (1991)

Page 2 of 2

Final Checkl ist July 9, 2010 

### SM 2540D REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? Temp? Volume ?

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Rec ord :

**•** Date received?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

**•** Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

**•** Preservation checked by lab? Temp?

Volume?

**•** Sample c onditions ?

**•** Sample hold time ?

**•** Any anomalies reported by lab ?



### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

- Filtration and Drying Information

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

**•** Standard expiration date:

**•** Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

**•** Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected

and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

I ndicate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D . QC INFORMATION

1. Was the tare weight of the drying dish reported?

2. Was the sample volume recorded in milliliters (mL)?

3. Were the oven

- drying times reported?



### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation: Was the total suspended solids

calculated by the formula in Section 4 of SM

2540D?
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-142-001]


CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

March 7, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 2, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas 
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 
603, to be effective March 1, 2007:
    CEGT states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's order dated February 27, 2007 in which CEGT was directed 
to correct a word processing error.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f595a4d5c50717376717a4c6a6f6f706d6b5f797a6d7c31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3e5e6f1e0eccdcfcacdc6f0d6d3d3ccd1d7e3c5c6d1c08dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4486 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 59026.

protest 228021-K (New York).

#### Renault Selling Branch, Inc., and F. O. Nelson Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10753-10754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4274]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8286-5]


Omega Chemical Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA 
Administrative Settlement With Certain Ability To Pay Parties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs 
concerning the Omega Chemical Site in Whittier, Los Angeles County, 
California with 12 settling ability to pay parties. The settlement is 
entered into pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), 
and it requires the settling parties to pay approximately $111,000 to 
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The settlement 
includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties, pursuant to 
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days 
following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will 
receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will 
consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent 
to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations 
which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or 
inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be 
available for public inspection at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
CA 94105.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A 
copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Steve Berninger, 
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, ORC-3, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
telephone number 415-972-3909. Comments should reference the Omega 
Chemical Superfund Site, Whittier, California and EPA Docket No. 2006-
26, and should be addressed to Steve Berninger at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Berninger, Assistant Regional 
Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75

[[Page 10754]]

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3909; fax: 
(415) 947-3570; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5d7d0c7dbdcdbd2d0c79bc6c1d0c5ddd0dbf5d0c5d49bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="741611061a1d1a1311065a070011041c111a341104155a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
Keith Takata,
Director, Superfund Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-4274 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Safeguard Fire Insurance Company, *Appellant, v.*John Greenway, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed.
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





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of INTERNATIONAL MONETARY
SYSTEMS, LTS. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, Danny W Weibling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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;
and





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Danny W
Weibling





Danny W
Weibling


Chief
Financial Officer





April 1,
2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Ayala, Also Known as Robert Ayala, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 548]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered February 18, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find no basis to disturb the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The defendant, through the testimony of a psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist, attempted to establish that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time that he killed his victim with a knife. However, the People presented evidence through the testimony of their own psychiatrist, corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses, including statements of the defendant, that the defendant picked up and secreted the murder weapon in his pocket before he allegedly became emotionally disturbed. The defendant’s claim that he only intended to scare his victim with the knife tended to show that he anticipated the victim’s rejection of his sexual advances. Additionally, the defendant admitted that he covered the victim’s mouth when she started to scream, indicating a presence of mind sufficient to attempt to prevent others from hearing what he was doing. It was also established that the defendant exercised enough control to enable him to inflict 13 shallow cuts on the victim. After the defendant finished stabbing his victim, he stole her VCR, returned home, cleaned himself up, and sold the VCR to obtain more crack-cocaine.

These actions are inconsistent with the alleged loss of control from extreme emotional disturbance claimed by the defendant. Thus, the jury could reasonably have rejected the affirmative defense *(see, People v Tolbert,*214 AD2d 626; *People v Yong Ho*
      *458
      *Han,*200 AD2d 780; *People v Marinaccio,*190 AD2d 819; *People v Fisher,*177 AD2d 704). Moreover, the jury was entitled to reject the defendant’s explanation for his emotional state as so unreasonable that it did not warrant mitigation of the charges *(see, People v Casassa,*49 NY2d 668, 681, *cert denied*449 US 842; *People v Checo,*194 AD2d 410).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4147 

To continue to fund the IMPROVE initiative through the Eunice Kennedy 

Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2024 

Ms. BUTLER (for herself and Mrs. BRITT) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To continue to fund the IMPROVE initiative through the 

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NIH Implementing 

5 a Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for 

6 Everyone’’ or the ‘‘NIH IMPROVE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4147 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVE INITIATIVE. 

2 Subpart 7 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 

3 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding 

4 at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 452H. IMPROVE INITIATIVE. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Institute 

7 shall continue to carry out the IMPROVE initiative (re8 ferred to in this section as the ‘Initiative’) through the 

9 Institute for the following: 

10 ‘‘(1) Advancing research to— 

11 ‘‘(A) reduce preventable causes of maternal 

12 mortality and severe maternal morbidity; 

13 ‘‘(B) reduce racial, ethnic, geographic, and 

14 socioeconomic disparities in maternal health 

15 outcomes; and 

16 ‘‘(C) improve health for pregnant and 

17 postpartum individuals before, during, and after 

18 pregnancy. 

19 ‘‘(2) Using an integrated approach to under20 stand the biological, behavioral, sociocultural, and 

21 structural factors that affect maternal mortality and 

22 severe maternal morbidity by building an evidence 

23 base for improved care and outcomes in specific re24 gions of the United States. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4147 IS

1 ‘‘(3) Targeting health disparities associated 

2 with maternal mortality and severe maternal mor3 bidity by— 

4 ‘‘(A) implementing and evaluating commu5 nity-based interventions for disproportionately 

6 affected individuals; and 

7 ‘‘(B) identifying risk factors and the un8 derlying biological mechanisms associated with 

9 leading causes of maternal mortality and severe 

10 maternal morbidity in the United States, in11 cluding cardiovascular disease, infection and 

12 immunity, vitamin and nutrient deficiencies, 

13 and mental and behavioral health. 

14 ‘‘(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Director of the Insti15 tute may award grants or enter into contracts, cooperative 

16 agreements, or other transactions to carry out subsection 

17 (a), including with researchers from racial and ethnic mi18 nority groups (as defined in section 1707(g)(1)). 

19 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

20 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

21 $53,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(Reap. Dec. 8540)

#### Paul K. Frankford, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 713280.

(Decided February 8, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement involves the proper dutiable value of certain items of hides, identified by plaintiff as “Russet Horse Butts and Leather Hides with Hair, Uppers,” which were exported from Paris, France, and entered at the port of New York.

When the case was called for trial, the appeal for reappraisement was limited, by agreement between the parties, to the merchandise represented by the invoice items marked *“A”*and “B” in red ink. Under the terms of an oral stipulation, it has been established that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the merchandise represented by the invoice items marked “A” is the unit invoice values, less 3 per centum, packed, and for the merchandise *527represented by the invoice items marked “B” is the appraised unit prices, less 3 per centum, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL ESTEBAN RUBIO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73138 

Agency No. A097-577-845 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Raul Esteban Rubio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his motion to 

terminate. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-73138 

questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We 

grant the petition for review and remand.

Rubio was charged with removability based on his conviction under Nevada 

Revised Statutes (“NRS”) § 195.030. The agency sustained the charge, determined 

the conviction was an aggravated felony offense related to obstruction of justice,

and ordered Rubio removed. Our recent decision, Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 

968 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020), held that “California Penal Code [(“CPC”)] 

§ 32 is not a categorical match with obstruction of justice under [Immigration and 

Nationality Act] § 101(a)(43)(S) because California’s statute encompasses 

interference with proceedings or investigations that are not pending or ongoing.” 

The text of NRS § 195.030 proscribes conduct analogous to that at issue in CPC 

§ 32. Thus, the sole charge of removability against Rubio cannot be sustained.

We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the 

decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If 

we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we 

must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.