alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
514 A.2d 947

#### Noel ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Feb. 24, 1986.

Filed Sept. 19, 1986.

Theodore Hauptman, Philadelphia, for appellant.

David M. McCormick, Philadelphia, for appellees.

Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and CAVANAUGH,* BROSKY, WIEAND, OLSZEWSKI, DEL SOLE, MONTEMURO, BECK and TAMILIA, JJ.

*

 CAVANAUGH, J., did not participate in the decision in this case.

OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

This matter comes before this Court *en banc*on appeal from an order of the lower court granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant asks us to decide whether an uninsured owner-operator may receive uninsured motorist benefits from an assigned claims plan insurer. In a companion case, we answered this question in the negative. We refer appellant to the case of *Brown v. Travelers Insurance Company,*355 Pa.Super. 535, 513 A.2d 1051 (1986).

Order affirmed.

BROSKY, J., files dissenting opinion.

*455BROSKY, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my Dissenting Opinion in *Brown v. Travelers Insurance Company,*355 Pa.Super. 535, 513 A.2d 1051 (1986).
#### Slensby, Appellant, vs. Markle and others, Respondents.

*May 9*

June *5, 1934.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Fish, Marshuts & Hoffman,*attorneys, and *I. A. Fish, Leo W. Slensby,*and *W. H. Voss*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Fish.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Olwell & Brady*and *William T. Gill,*all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Gill*and *Mr. Lawrence A. Olwell.*

Fowler, J.

This case was argued and submitted with the case of *Stott v. Markle (ante,*p. 528, 255 N. W. 540), and is ruled by the decision therein.

*By the Court.*— The portion of the order of the circuit court suppressing examination of the defendants to enable the plaintiff to plead is reversed; the portion quashing the subpoena so far as it commands the production of the things named in the subpoena, is affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Thomas L. Hefner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
|   | /s/      Thomas  L. Hefner |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas L.  Hefner                                        |   |
|   | Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer                    |   |
|   | of the  General Partner                                  |   |
|   | May 13, 2003                                             |   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provide to Darell E. Zink, Jr., Vice Chairman,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner andwill be retained by Mr. Zink and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission upon request.

 

----
# L_2015142EN.01002901.xml

| 6.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 142/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 142/29

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2015/875

of 2 June 2015

on the acceptance of a third State's contribution to the European Union CSDP Military Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUMAM RCA) (EUMAM RCA/3/2015)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/78 of 19 January 2015 on a European Union CSDP Military Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUMAM RCA) (1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/78, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions on the acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/78, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions on the acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States.

| (2) | Following a recommendation on the contribution offer of the Republic of Serbia by the EU Mission Commander of EUMAM RCA and the advice from the European Union Military Committee, that offer should be accepted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following a recommendation on the contribution offer of the Republic of Serbia by the EU Mission Commander of EUMAM RCA and the advice from the European Union Military Committee, that offer should be accepted.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   The contribution offer of the Republic of Serbia to the European Union CSDP Military Advisory Mission in the Central African Republic (EUMAM RCA) is accepted and is considered to be significant.

2.   The Republic of Serbia is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUMAM RCA.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 2 June 2015.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

W. STEVENS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 13, 20.1.2015, p. 8.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DONNELL SEAN WIGGINS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00034-JBF-JEB-1)

Submitted: April 6, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnell Sean Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Donnell Sean Wiggins appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order
denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See United States v. Wiggins , No. 2:06-

cr-00034-JBF-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2008; Oct. 17, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument Collections

# Rulemaking Documents

*Documents associated with NRC's rulemaking process*.
        - Rulemaking Dockets
        - Petition for Rulemaking Dockets
        - Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
        - Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year
        - Rulemaking Highlights

See also, NRC's Regulations, Rulemaking, NRC Rules and Petitions, and NRC’s Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Sunday, September 20, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes
          - Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials
          - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
          - Agreement State Action Items
          - Agreement State Communications
          - ASLBP
          - Commission Documents
          - Congressional Documents
          - Electronic Government (E-Gov) Documents
          - Enforcement Documents
          - Enforcement Petition (2.206)
          - Events, Reports Associated with
          - Fact Sheets & Brochures
          - Federal Register Notices (NRC)
          - Forms (NRC)
          - For the Record
          - Generic Communications
          - Generic Issues
          - Government Information Locator Service (GILS)
          - Human Factors Information System
          - Inspection Manual
          - OIG Reports
          - IMPEP Reviews of NRC Programs
          - Interim Staff Guidance
          - Management Directives
          - Memoranda of Understanding
          - News Releases
          - NMSS Procedures
          - NRC Datasets
          - NRC Infographics
          - NRC Maps
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - OMB Exhibit 300s
          - Personal Identity Verification
          - Previous Site Additions
          - Regulations (NRC, 10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides (by Division)
          - Research Information Letters
          - Rulemaking Documents
          - Technical Letter Reports

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Sunday, September 20, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1878 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1878

    To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Small Business 
                            Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2017

  Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Mr. Evans, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mrs. 
 Murphy of Florida, Mr. Lawson of Florida, Ms. Judy Chu of California, 
 Ms. Adams, Mr. Espaillat, and Mr. Schneider) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Small Business 
                            Administration.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON HIRING FREEZE FROM AFFECTING SMALL BUSINESS 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    The memorandum titled ``Presidential Memorandum Regarding the 
Hiring Freeze'' published on January 23, 2017, or any other 
substantially similar memorandum, Executive order, or other action by 
the President to prevent a department or agency of the Federal 
Government from filling vacant Federal civilian employee positions or 
creating new such positions, shall have no force or effect with respect 
to positions within the Small Business Administration.
                                 <all>
```
HomeSite Help

# Contact the NRC Webmaster

**Important:** If you have questions or comments regarding our **NRCareers Online Job Application System** (including requests to have your password reset), please see Contact Us About Employment.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 1, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Index A-Z
          - Site Map
          - What's New On Our Site
          - Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools
          - Special Features
          - Electronic Submittals Application
          - Digital Accessibility Statement
          - Contact the NRC Webmaster
          - Privacy Policy
          - Site Disclaimer
          - For Developers

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 1, 2021
#### Falk and others, Executors, Respondents, vs. Wisconsin Tax Commission and others, Appellants.

*February 11*

May *12, 1931.*

*Leo Mann {Lines, Spooner &*Quarles) of Milwaukee for the motion.

*A. L. Hougen*of Manitowoc, special counsel, in opposition.

The following opinion was filed March 10, 1931:

Fritz, J.

The judgment of September 6, 1930, was entered subsequent to the following mandate of this court on a former appeal in this case, to wit: “Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment vacating the assessment.” 201 Wis. 292, 230 N. W. 64.

That mandate reversed a judgment of the circuit court which affirmed an additional assessment for income taxation on an item of $39,408.96, imposed by the county assessor of incomes, as modified and affirmed by the county *519income tax board of review and the Wisconsin Tax Commission. That reversal affected merely the additional assessment for that item of $39,408.96.

However, the circuit court’s judgment of September 6, 1930, provides:

> *“. .*. that the judgment heretofore entered by this court in this action and dated the 9th day of October, 1929, be and the same hereby is reversed and that-the assessment of income tax upon income for the year 1924 against Charles F. Pfister and/or against the executors of the last will and testament of Charles F. Pfister, deceased, be and the same hereby is vacated.”

In so far as that last judgment does not conform to the mandate in that its scope extends to the vacation of the entire assessment of all of the 1924 income, instead of being limited to merely the additional assessment for the $39,408.96 item, which was all that was involved on the former appeal, the defendants’ remedy, if aggrieved by the circuit court’s judgment and order, is by *mandamus (State ex rel. Guse v. Agnew,*198 Wis. 401, 224 N. W. 110; *Patten Paper Co. v. Green Bay & M. C. Co.*93 Wis. 283, 290, 66 N. W. 601, 67 N. W. 432, citing *City Nat. Bank v. Hunter,*152 U. S. 512, 14 Sup. Ct. 675), and not by an appeal from the judgment erroneously entered. Under the circumstances, the proper practice is to dismiss the appeal. *Baines v. Janesville,*103 Wis. 102, 79 N. W. 29; *Patten Paper Co. v. Green Bay & M. C. Co., supra; Ean v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.*101 Wis. 166, 76 N. W. 329.

*By the Court.*— Appeals dismissed.

On motion for a rehearing, etc., there were briefs by *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Leo Mann*and *Chas. R. Quarles*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, for respondents, and by the *Attorney General*and *Samuel Bryan,*assistant attorney general, for the appellants.

The motion was denied, with $25 costs, on May 12, 1931.
Amendment to Index License Agreement for Funds, dated as of June 5, 2007



 Exhibit 10.8 
 Client Code/Reference No: ADD-00203 
 AMENDMENT 

Date of Amendment: June 5 2007 
 AMENDMENT to the Index License Agreement for Funds (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 18, 2000, by and between Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. (“MSCI”)
and Barclays Global Investors, N.A (“Licensee”); as amended. 
  

	1.	Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the Standard Country Indices listed below with the Investable Market Country Indices listed below:


  

			
	 Standard Index
	  	 Investable Market Index

	 MSCI Turkey Index
	  	MSCI Turkey Investable Market Index
	 MSCI Thailand Index
	  	MSCI Thailand Investable Market Index
	 MSCI Chile Index
	  	MSCI Chile Investable Market Index
	 MSCI Israel Capped Index
	  	MSCI Israel Capped Investable Market Index

  

	2.	This Amendment is intended to amend and operate in conjunction with the Agreement and together this Amendment and the Agreement constitute the complete and exclusive
statement of the agreement between the parties and supersede in full all prior proposals and understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof. No right or license of any kind is granted to Licensee except as expressly provided
in the Agreement and this Amendment. 

  

	3.	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict or choice of laws principles.


  

									
	BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS, N.A.	 		 	MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
					
	By	 	/s/ Greg Friedman	 		 	By	 	/s/ Dennis Sidlauskas
	Name	 	Greg Friedman	 		 	Name	 	Dennis Sidlauskas
		 		 		 		 	Executive Director

  

			
	BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS, N.A.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Elaine Orr
	Name:	 	Elaine Orr
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**DEMETRIUS AARON HARDY,**

**Appellee :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 43 MAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the Order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal**  **Division, dated April 29, 2014 at No.**

**CP-15-CR-0004175-2013**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, **this 31 st**  **day of August, 2015, the Order of the Court of Comm on** 

**Pleas is hereby** AFFIRMED **. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 20 15).**
#### JOHN BEARD and wife v. CHARLES J. BINGHAM and others.

*Court of Equity--Practice-- Usurious Contracts.*

A Court of Equity will not permit the enforcement of a usurious contract, but when called upon-by the borrower for assistance will compel him to do equity by paying the principal money with legal interest.

*(Ballinger*v. *Edwards,*4 Ire. Eq. 449, cited and approved.)

MotioN to dissolve an Injunction, heard at Chambers on the 10th day of November, 1876, before *Cloud, J. .*

The plaintiffs alleged that in January, 1874, they executed a note for $321.52, with interest at 10 per cent, to Thomas E. Brown one of the defendants, and to secure the payment *286thereof executed a mortgage deed to defendant Bingham conveying certain lands in Rowan County, being the homestead of plaintiffs.

Subsequently defendant Brown assigned the note i to defendant Kesler who purchased with notice of the usurious interest. A sale of the land was advertised by defendant Bingham under the power contained in the deed, but an order was made by *Kerr, X,*restraining him from selling and directing him to appear before the Judge of the 8th District and show cause why the injunction should not be made perpetual.

The defendants appeared and filed an answer alleging that they did not intend to exact the 10 per cent, interest by reason of an Act to prevent usury, ratified on the 22nd of February, 1875 ; that the original consideration of said note was for money borrowed of one Swink, that Swink was indebted to defendant Brown for the purchase of a house and lot in Salisbury, and assigned the said note to said Brown as part payment; that plaintiffs have never paid any part-thereof; the defendants ask that the injunction be dissolved and the said land be sold to pay the debt.

His Honor dissolved the injunction and ordered that de fendants be allowed'to collect the principal of the note and six per cent interest, and adjudged that defendant Bingham the trustee proceed to sell the land.

Appeal by plaintiffs.

No counsel for the plaintiffs.

*Mr. J. M. Me Corkle*for the defendants,

cited *Ballinger*v. *Kdwards,*4 Ire. Eq. 449; *McBr'ayer*v. Roberts, 2 Dev. Eq.. 75, and *State Bank*v. Knox, 1 D & B. Eq. 50.

Haircloth, J.

A Court of Equity is as much bound by the Statute of Usury as a Court of Law, and will not allow the lender to enforce his usurious contract; and when called *287upon by tbe borrower for assistance to protect him it will give it, but will require liim to do equity by paying the-principal money and the legal interest. *Ballinger*v. *Edwards,*4 Ire. Eq. 449, and the cases cited.

In this action the order below of His Honor is affirmed, with the modification, that if the plaintiffs fail to pay and satisfy said judgment for thirty days after service of a certified copy of this opinion then the defendants may proceed to foreclose their mortgage by sale and satisfy their said judgment. Defendants will recover their costs in this. Court.

Let this be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities (NUREG-0713)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 07, 2024
*April 9, 1940.*

#### Mielke, Appellant, vs. Markman and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *William J. Geenen*of Appleton.

For the respondents: *Benton, Bosser, Becker & Parnell*of Appleton.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32







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 U.S. Wireless Online, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rick E. Hughes, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Rick E. Hughes

Rick E. Hughes

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 15, 2005