alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
J OHNNY DANIEL CAYEROS , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA- CR 21-0269 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2005-009971-001 DT The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent
J ohnny Daniel Cayeros , Buckeye Petitioner FILED 12-2-2021STATE v. C AYEROS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Johnny Daniel Cayeros seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 2 27 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petiti on for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### Richard Schnibbe, Respondent, v. Hauck Manufacturing Company, Defendant. Oscar A. Lewis, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant.

Motion for restitution granted to the extent that the money paid by the Hauck Manufacturing Company be paid into court to await the event of the action. Present — Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ.
#### Mary J. O’Connor et al., Respondents, v. President and Directors of the Manhattan Company, as Executor and Trustee of Mabel H. Green, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
### §70310. Service of process

The corporation shall comply with the law on service of process of each State in which it is incorporated and each State in which it carries on activities.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1351.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70310 | 36:2204. | Jan. 8, 1983, Pub. L. 97–427, §4, 96 Stat. 2265. |

Section
### §40109. Records and inspection

(a) Records.—The corporation shall keep—

(1) correct and complete records of account;

(2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of its board of directors; and

(3) at its principal office, a record of the names and addresses of its members entitled to vote.

(b) Inspection.—A member entitled to vote, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1331.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40109 | 36:2610. | Aug. 17, 1984, Pub. L. 98–382, §10, 98 Stat. 1345. |

Section

The word "records" is substituted for "books and records" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words "Nothing in this section shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law" are omitted as unnecessary.
### [§322. Renumbered §354]
Regional Corner:Vayots Dzor, Armenia

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS OF INSIGHT CAPITAL, INC.**

Theundersigned hereby certify that the annual report on Form 10-K ofInsight Capital, Inc. (“the registrant”) for the year ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
|        |   | /s/ MICHAEL S.  WILLNER                                                                                     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael S. Willner Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer   Insight Capital, Inc.   March 29, 2007 |

 
|        |   | /s/ JOHN ABBOT                                                                                                        |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | John Abbot Executive Vice President  and   Chief Financial Officer   Insight Capital, Inc.   March 29, 2007 |

 

----
§ 838.306 Specifying type of annuity for application of formula, percentage or fraction. ( a ) A court order directed at an employee annuity that states the former spouse's share of employee annuity as a formula, percentage, or fraction is not a court order acceptable for processing unless OPM can determine the type of annuity (i.e., phased retirement annuity, composite retirement annuity, net annuity, gross annuity, or self-only annuity) on which to apply the formula, percentage, or fraction.
( b ) The standard types of annuity to which OPM can apply the formula, percentage, or fraction are phased retirement annuity of a phased retiree, or net annuity, gross annuity, or self-only annuity of a retiree. Unless the court order otherwise directs, OPM will apply to gross annuity the formula, percentage, or fraction directed at annuity payable to either a retiree or a phased retiree. Section 838.625 contains information on other methods of describing these types of annuity.
( c ) ( 1 ) A court order may include provisions directed at: ( i ) Phased retirement annuity payable to a phased retiree, to address the possibility that an employee will enter phased retirement status;
( ii ) Composite retirement annuity payable to a phased retiree at entry into full retirement status, to address the possibility that an employee will enter phased retirement status and then enter full retirement status; and
( iii ) Annuity payable to an employee who retires without having elected phased retirement status.
( 2 ) To separately provide for division of phased retirement annuity or composite retirement annuity, a provision of a court order must expressly state that it is directed at “phased retirement annuity” or “composite retirement annuity,” and must meet the requirements of paragraph (a). That is, it must state the type of annuity to be divided (e.g., “net phased retirement annuity”). If such a provision is unclear as to whether it is directed at gross, net, or self-only phased retirement annuity or composite retirement annuity, the provision will be applied to gross phased retirement annuity or gross composite retirement annuity, as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( 3 ) Unless a court order expressly states that phased retirement annuity or composite retirement annuity is not to be divided, a court order meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and that generally provides for division of annuity, without meeting the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, regarding the specific type of annuity being divided, will be applied to divide any employee annuity, including phased retirement annuity and composite retirement annuity.
[79 FR 46627, Aug. 8, 2014]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 65612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth is sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Communication of People with 
Mental Retardation.
    Date: December 6, 2004.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Building, Room 5B01, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6911, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#781017081519161615381519111456161110561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e66617e636f6060634e636f67622060676620696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 5, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-25272 Filed 11-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
H. R. 2328

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2001 East

Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert A. Borski Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall be

known and designated as the ‘‘Robert A. Borski Post Office

Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert

A. Borski Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
B.C.D. 00-59

DEC 1 8 2000

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Nashville & Western Railroad Corporation (N&WRR)

This is a determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the status

of the Nashville & Western Railroad Corporation (N&WRR) as an employer

under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231 et seq.) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351 et seq.).

In Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket 33907, decided July 28,

2000, N&WRR filed a verified notice of exemption to operate a line of railroad

owned by the Cheatham County Rail Authority (Rail Authority). The line

extends from Tennessee Central milepost 205.76, at Nashville, Tennessee, to

Tennessee Central milepost 185. at Ashland, Tennessee, a total distance of

approximately 28.0 miles. N&WRR entered into a sale agreement with the

Central of Tennessee Railway & Navigation Company (CoTRy) on August 8,

2000, with N&WRR purchasing the entire rail line and assets of CoTRy.

Pursuant to the sale. N&WRR acquired the lease rights and obligations of the

CoTRy under its lease and operating agreement with the Rail Authority.

Information regarding N&WRR was furnished by Mr. William J. Drunsic.

Owner, President and Chief Executive Officer of N&WRR. Mr. Drunsic

reported that N&WRR began operations on August 1. 2000 and has no

employees. N&WRR interchanges with CSX Transportation. Inc. (CSXT) (B.

A. No. 1524).

Section 1(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. $231(a)(1)), insofar as

relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the

Surface Transportation Board under part A of subtitle IV of Title

49. United States Code.

The evidence of record establishes that N&WRR is a rail carrier operating in

interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that the Nashville &

BA#5580
-9.

Nashville & Western Railroad Corporation (N&WRR)

Western Railroad Corporation became an employer within the meaning of

section l(a)(l)(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §23l(a)(l)(i)) and the

corresponding provision of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act

effective August 1. 2000. the date as of which it commenced operations.

V. M. Speakman. Jr.

( .
### §40723. Eligibility for participation

(a) Certification.—(1) An individual shall certify by affidavit, before participating in an activity sponsored or supported by the corporation, that the individual—

(A) has not been convicted of a felony;

(B) has not been convicted of a violation of section 922 of title 18; and

(C) is not a member of an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

(2) The Director of Civilian Marksmanship may require an individual to provide certification from law enforcement agencies to verify that the individual has not been convicted of a felony or a violation of section 922 of title 18.

(b) Ineligibility.—An individual may not participate in an activity sponsored or supported by the corporation if the individual—

(1) has been convicted of a felony; or

(2) has been convicted of a violation of section 922 of title 18.

(c) Limiting Participation.—The Director may limit participation in the program as necessary to ensure—

(1) the safety of participants;

(2) the security of firearms, ammunition, and equipment; and

(3) the quality of instruction in the use of firearms.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1337.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40723(a) | 36:5503(a). | Feb. 10, 1996, Pub. L. 104–106, title XVI, §1613, 110 Stat. 517. |
| 40723(b) | 36:5503(b). | |
| 40723(c) | 36:5503(c). | |

Section

In subsection (a)(1), the words "shall certify" are substituted for "shall be required to certify", and the word "felony" is substituted for "Federal or State felony", to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (a)(2), the words "provide certification" are substituted for "attach to the person's affidavit a certification", and the words "law enforcement agencies" are substituted for "appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency", to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b), the words "may not participate" are substituted for "shall not be eligible to participate" to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "through the Civilian Marksmanship Program" are omitted as unnecessary. The word "felony" is substituted for "Federal or State felony" to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (c)(3), the words "the quality of instruction" are substituted for "quality instruction" for consistency in the subsection.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

April 28, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00250

- CV

IN RE ALLBRITE CONSTRUCTORS OF TEXAS, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Jus tice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On April 27, 2015

, relator Allbrite Constructor of Texas, Inc. filed a petition for writ of

mandamus and motion for temporary relief pending a ruling on the mandamus p etition. The

court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for

temporary relief are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8 (a). The court’s opinion will issue at a

later date.

It is so ORDERED on April 28, 2015

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court o n this 28th day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 392309, styled Allbrite Constructors of Texas, Inc. v. Tempel Builders,

Inc. and John Doe , pending in the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen Crouch

presiding.
```

[House Report 107-344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-344

======================================================================

 
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
  COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

  December 19 (legislative day, December 18), 2001.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 319]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 319, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of 
Wednesday, December 19, 2001, providing for the consideration 
or disposition of a bill to provide tax incentives for economic 
recovery, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, 
or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference 
thereon.

                                  

```
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD APPROVES SETTLEMENT 

IN SIEMASZKO CASE REGARDING DAVIS-BESSE MISCONDUCT 

 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has approved a settlement in the NRC 

enforcement hearing against former nuclear power plant engineer Andrew Siemaszko, ending the 

proceeding and prohibiting his involvement in any agency-licensed activities until April 2010. 

The Siemaszko case stemmed from violations of NRC regulations associated with the 

significant reactor vessel head damage discovered in March 2002 at the Davis-Besse Nuclear 

Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio. The settlement requires Siemaszko, once the ban ends, to 

notify the agency within 20 days of accepting an NRC-regulated job; he must explain why the 

agency should have confidence he will comply with NRC rules. 

“As a result of the NRC’s investigations and enforcement actions, Mr. Siemaszko will 

have been absent from the nuclear power industry for almost eight years,” said Cynthia 

Carpenter, Director of the NRC’s Office of Enforcement. “This settlement sends a strong 

message to the industry about the serious consequences of failing to provide complete and 

accurate information and not complying with our safety regulations.” 

Siemaszko was responsible for reactor vessel head cleaning during a 2000 outage. The 

agency found that he deliberately provided incomplete and inaccurate information regarding the 

cleaning and condition of the head. 

The NRC originally issued an Order to Siemaszko on April 21, 2005, which would have 

prohibited his involvement in agency-regulated activities for five years. He requested a hearing 

on the Order, which the ASLB granted but held in abeyance during the Department of Justice’s 

parallel criminal case against Siemaszko. A federal jury found him guilty in August 2008 of 

lying to the NRC. Siemaszko’s federal sentence of three years’ probation including a fine of 

$4500 and a restriction on any nuclear industry employment until February 2012, without prior 

approval of his probation officer. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-127 July 20, 2009
As a result of the NRC’s investigation, the agency also fined Davis-Besse’s owner, 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, $5.45 million for the company’s role in the reactor 

head damage. 

The ASLB is the NRC’s quasi-judicial arm dealing with licensing and enforcement 

matters. More information about the ASLB can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
#### §§ 723.131-723.139 [Reserved]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT NO. 23.2


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-47758) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan, 2000 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and the 2000 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan of
Kosan Biosciences Incorporated of our report dated February 9, 2001 with respect
to the financial statements of Kosan Biosciences Incorporated included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 26, 2001