alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-1464

Filed December 6, 2017

ROBERT JOHNATHAN DAVIS,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Lucy J. Gamon, 

Judge.

Robert Davis appeals from the dismissal of his second application for 

postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Jeffrey A. Smith of Smith Law Firm, Oskaloosa, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State. 

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

DANILSON, Chief Judge.

Robert Davis appeals from the dismissal of his second application for 

postconviction relief. We find no error and affirm.

After a jury trial, Davis was convicted of six counts of sexual

abuse. He was sentenced on November 21, 2008. His convictions and 

sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Davis, No. 08-1942, 2009 WL 

4116322, at *5-6 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2009). His application for further review 

was denied, and procedendo issued on March 11, 2010. 

Davis’s first application for postconviction relief was denied, and we 

affirmed the denial on appeal. Davis v. State, No. 12-0436, 2013 WL 530577, at 

*1-2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013).

Davis filed this second application for postconviction relief on October 17, 

2013, more than three years after procedendo issued following his direct appeal. 

The district court dismissed the application as time barred, and Davis appeals.

“Generally, postconviction relief proceedings are reviewed for correction of 

errors at law.” Reilly v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 783 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Iowa 2010). 

We find no error in the summary dismissal of Davis’s

application. See Iowa Code § 822.6 (2013) (allowing summary dismissal where 

no purpose would be served by further proceedings). Because this application 

for postconviction relief was filed more than three years after procedendo issued, 

it is time barred unless the application raises “a ground of fact or law that could 

not have been raised within the applicable time period.” See id. § 822.3

(emphasis added) (stating “applications must be filed within three years from . . . 

the date the writ of procedendo is issued” but “this limitation does not apply to a 
3

ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the applicable time 

period”). Davis contends he raises a new issue. However, the issue raised1

could have been raised within the applicable time period and is thus subject to 

the three-year limitation period. We affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

1 Davis contends trial counsel was ineffective in a different respect than raised in his first 

application, that is, in failing to obtain the testimony of an expert witness. He contends 

he did not know he could request the court to appoint an expert until recently. The 

three-year statute of limitations would have no meaningful limitation if such a claim 

satisfied the exception.
### §14151. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1154(b)(3), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3113

Section, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXI, §210501, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2072, related to grants for the purposes of improving criminal justice agency efficiency through computerized automation and technological improvements, directed the expansion and improvement of training and investigative assistance, authorized appropriations, and defined terms.
3.905-2 Enforcement of orders.

(a) Whenever a contractor or subcontractor fails to comply with an order issued under 3.905–1(a)(2),

the head of the agency concerned shall file an action for enforcement of the order in the U.S. district

court for a district in which the reprisal was found to have occurred. In any action brought pursuant

to this authority, the court may grant appropriate relief, including injunctive relief, compensatory

and exemplary damages, and attorney fees and costs. The complainant employee upon whose behalf

an order was issued may also file such an action or join in an action filed by the head of the agency.

(b) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order issued under 3.905–1(a)(2) may obtain

review of the order's conformance with 41 U.S.C. 4712 and its implementing regulations, in the U.S.

court of appeals for a circuit in which the reprisal is alleged in the order to have occurred. No

petition seeking such review may be filed more than 60 days after issuance of the order by the head

of the agency. Filing such an appeal shall not act to stay the enforcement of the order of the head of

an agency, unless a stay is specifically entered by the court.

Parent topic: 3.905 Remedies and enforcement of orders.
§ 231.107 Legacy semiconductor. ( a ) *Legacy semiconductor* means: ( 1 ) For the purposes of a semiconductor wafer facility: ( i ) A silicon wafer measuring 8 inches (or 200 millimeters) or smaller in diameter; or
( ii ) A compound wafer measuring 6 inches (or 150 millimeters) or smaller in diameter.
( 2 ) For the purposes of a semiconductor fabrication facility: ( i ) A digital or analog logic semiconductor that is of the 28-nanometer generation or older (*i.e.,* has a gate length of 28 nanometers or more for a planar transistor);
( ii ) A memory semiconductor with a half-pitch greater than 18 nanometers for Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) or less than 128 layers for Not AND (NAND) flash that does not utilize emerging memory technologies, such as transition metal oxides, phase-change memory, perovskites, or ferromagnetics relevant to advanced memory fabrication; or
( iii ) A semiconductor identified by the Secretary in a public notice issued under 15 U.S.C. 4652(a)(6)(A)(ii).
( 3 ) For the purposes of a semiconductor packaging facility, a semiconductor that does not utilize advanced three-dimensional (3D) integration packaging, under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the following are not legacy semiconductors: ( 1 ) Semiconductors critical to national security, as defined in § 231.118;
( 2 ) A semiconductor with a post-planar transistor architecture (such as fin-shaped field field-effect transistor (FinFET) or gate all around field-effect transistor); and
( 3 ) A semiconductor utilizing advanced three-dimensional (3D) integration packaging, such as by directly attaching one or more die or wafer, through silicon vias, through mold vias, or other advanced methods.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### §§ 200.661-200.669 [Reserved]
POWER OF ATTORNEY     Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each  of Susan A. Stone and Stathy Darcy, signing singly, the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney- in-fact to:    (1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned’s capacity as an  officer and/or director of CNA Financial Corporation (the “Company”), Forms 3, 4,  and 5 in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  the rules thereunder; and    (2)    do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which may be  necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 3, 4, or 5,  complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file  such form with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any  stock exchange or similar authority; and    (3)   take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing  which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in the best  interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood that the  documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned  pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such  terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such attorney-in- fact’s discretion.    The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and authority to  do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary, or proper to be  done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and  purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of  substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such  attorney-in-fact’s substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this  power of attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges  that the forgoing attorney-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the undersigned,  are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the undersigned’s responsibilities to  comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.    This Power of Attorney shall supersede any existing power of attorney and shall remain  in full force and effect until a successor power of attorney is executed or the undersigned is no  longer required to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the undersigned’s holdings of and  transactions in securities issued by the Company, unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in  a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be  executed as of this 17th day of March, 2022.              /s/ Douglas M. Worman        _________________________        Name: Douglas M. Worman
### §15402. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15402 was editorially reclassified as section 21002 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### Catherine Cox, as Executrix of Edward P. McGrath, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant. Catherine Cox, as Executrix of Edward P. McGrath, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New *847York, Appellant.

*846(Claim No. 30169.)

*847(Claim No. 30168.)

— Motion granted to the extent of setting the cases down for reargument on the question of whether the decision and order of this court in each case should be modified so as to provide that the reversal is solely on the law and that the court has not yet considered the findings of fact. Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur; Bergan, J., taking no part. [See *ante,*p. 815; *post,*p. 912.]
### SUBCHAPTER I—PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES PROPERTY
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00105-CR

Mark Lynn Shrader, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 76165, THE HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 

a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he 

provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for 

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with 

this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide 
written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was 

provided, on or before July 28, 2017. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on July 18, 2017.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland

Do Not Publish
MARGARET M. DOANE NAMED NRC GENERAL COUNSEL

Margaret M. Doane has been named the new General Counsel of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane,

after consultation with the Commission. Doane will succeed Stephen G. 

Burns, who retired March 31 after 34 years of service to the NRC.

Most recently, Doane was Director of the NRC’s Office of 

International Programs. That office supports U.S. interests abroad in the 

safe and secure use of nuclear materials and in guarding against the spread 

of nuclear weapons. It also licenses the export and import of nuclear 

materials and equipment. 

Doane began her employment with the NRC in 1991 as a Special Assistant (Legal) in the 

Office of the Secretary. She subsequently served as an attorney in the Office of Commission 

Appellate Adjudication from 1991 to 1998. During this time, she was responsible for drafting 

opinions on novel issues related to the NRC’s licensing and regulatory responsibilities. She 

completed a temporary assignment as an Attorney in the Office of the General Counsel’s

Enforcement Branch in 1996. From 1998 to 2004, Doane served on the staff of Commissioner 

Jeffrey Merrifield as Legal Counsel, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Chief of Staff. In 2004, she 

became Deputy Director of the Office of International Programs.

“I am pleased to announce the appointment of Ms. Doane as the new General Counsel for 

our agency,” NRC Chairman Macfarlane said. “We have important legal matters before us and 

an outstanding legal staff to address them. Ms. Doane has the legal acumen, executive 

experience and proven leadership skills that will assure that this talent is fully leveraged in 

support of NRC’s critical regulatory mission.”

Prior to joining the NRC, Doane served for three years as an attorney advisor for the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Board of Veterans Appeals. Doane received a Bachelor of Arts 

degree in Economics from Loyola College in Baltimore and a Juris Doctorate from the 

University of Maryland School of Law.

Doane received the NRC Honorary Meritorious Service Award in 2005.

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: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-111 October 11, 2012
The Office of the General Counsel is under the supervision of the General Counsel, who 

reports to the Commission. It provides legal advice to the Commission and other agency officials 

on all aspects of the NRC’s regulatory and administrative functions and programs.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's w0ebsite. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
### §19011. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program update

#### (a) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that over the next five years the Foundation should increase the number of scholarships awarded under the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program established under section 1862n–1 of this title by 50 percent.

#### (b) Outreach

To increase the diversity of participants, the Director shall support symposia, forums, conferences, and other activities to expand and enhance outreach to—

(1) historically Black colleges and universities;

(2) Tribal Colleges or Universities;

(3) minority-serving institutions;

(4) institutions of higher education that are located near or serve rural communities, including EPSCoR institutions;

(5) labor organizations;

(6) emerging research institutions; and

(7) higher education programs that serve or support veterans.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10322, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1538.)
§ 230.153a Definition of “preceded by a prospectus” as used in section 5(b)(2) of the Act, in relation to certain transactions requiring approval of security holders. The term *preceded by a prospectus,* as used in section 5(b)(2) of the Act with respect to any requirement for the delivery of a prospectus to security holders of a corporation or other person, in connection with transactions of the character specified in paragraph (a) of § 230.145, shall mean the delivery of a prospectus: ( a ) Prior to the vote of security holders on such transactions; or,
( b ) With respect to actions taken by consent, prior to the earliest date on which the corporate action may be taken; to all security holders of record of such corporation or other person, entitled to vote on or consent to the proposed transaction, at their address of record on the transfer records of the corporation or other person.
[37 FR 23636, Nov. 7, 1972]
**Exhibit 31.2**I, Lawrence N. Hoffman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Performance Home Buyers, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.June 26, 2006         By                           /s/ Lawrence N. Hoffman         Lawrence N. Hoffman         Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of David Berke et al., as Executors of Wolf Berkowitz, Deceased, Appellants. Celia Shipman, also Known as Celia Berke, as Executrix of Morris Berke, Deceased, Respondent.

Motion referred to the court that rendered the decision. Present — Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ. Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ. [See 284 App. Div. 988.]
### §17501. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 17501 was editorially reclassified as section 60501 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-QSB) of
Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark H.Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

(a) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB 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-QSB.



| |  |     |  |                          |  |  |  |                   
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------
| |  |     |  |                         
| |  | By: |  | /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III |  |  |  | Date: May 12, 2006
| |  |     |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.    |  |  |  |                   
| |  |     |  | President and            |  |  |  |                   
| |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer  |  |  |  |                   
| |  |     |  |                         
| |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark H. Towe         |  |  |  | Date: May 12, 2006
| |  |     |  | Mark H. Towe             |  |  |  |                   
| |  |     |  | Sr. Vice-President and   |  |  |  |                   
| |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer  |  |  |  |