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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
JOSHUA ADAM MARSHALL , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 24

- 0104 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No s . CR 1998

- 093180 CR 2001

- 091927 The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Faith Cheree Klepper Counsel for Respondent
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC , Scottsdale By Christopher Stavris C ounsel for Petitioner FILED 06-25-2024STATE v. MARSHALL Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton , Judge Michael S. Catlett , and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Joshua Adam Marshall seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s second 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

- c onviction 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 , 227 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 petition for r eview. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
### PART E—MISCELLANEOUS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–440, title I, §103(a)(1), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4616, redesignated part D of this subtitle as part E.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3530

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Methacrylamide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2005

Mr. BUYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Methacrylamide.

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

3 SECTION 1. METHACRYLAMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.94 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Methacrylamide) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 3530 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Philip Deutsch, Respondent, v. H. *&*S. Dairy Products, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The claimant was employed as a routeman delivering dairy products and he normally worked 5 days a week, about 12 hours each day from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with *846the exception o£ Wednesday when he only worked a half day. On May 29, 1957 the claimant started work at 5:30 a.m. because, although it was a Wednesday, it was the day before a holiday and many more packages had to be delivered. In the process of loading his truck the claimant experienced pain across his chest while lifting a 72-pound crate of cheese. A coworker finished loading the claimant’s truck and the claimant made his deliveries although he did not feel well. The claimant characterized his work that day as “gruelling” and the eoworker stated that it was “an exceptionally heavy day ”. The pain persisted the following day and the claimant was hospitalized late in the evening on May 30. His condition was diagnosed as a myocardial infarction. Dr. Kateher, the attending physician and a specialist in chest diseases, was of the opinion that the work performed by the claimant on May 29 precipitated the infarction. While at one point he testified that this was “quite possible” it is clear from his reports and his testimony on cross-examination that his opinion on this was quite definite rather than speculative as the word “ possible ” might indicate. The appellants’ expert testified that there was no causal relationship between the work and the infarction as did the impartial specialist chosen by the board. The board found that the claimant’s work aggravated a pre-existing arteriosclerotic heart condition and that there was an accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The board could find on this record that the work performed by the claimant was arduous and was such as to subject him to more strain than the normal wear and tear of life and additionally that the work performed by him on May 29 was somewhat unusual compared to his normal activities. The conflict in the medical testimony presented a question of fact and the board was free to accept as it did the testimony of the claimant’s expert. It cannot be said as a matter of law that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
#### June Hallagan, infant, by Richard Hallagan, her next friend, defendants in error, v. Jennie Myles and Joseph Hamlin, plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 27,884.

Minor’s suit for personal injuries. Verdict for plaintiffs. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Franklin J. Stransky, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 17, 1923.

Rehearing denied November 14, 1923.

H. L. Howard, for plaintiffs in error. Kelly & Kelly, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §13521. General jurisdiction

(a) General Rules.—The Secretary and the Board have jurisdiction over transportation insofar as water carriers are concerned—

(1) by water carrier between a place in a State and a place in another State, even if part of the transportation is outside the United States;

(2) by water carrier and motor carrier from a place in a State to a place in another State; except that if part of the transportation is outside the United States, the Secretary only has jurisdiction over that part of the transportation provided—

(A) by motor carrier that is in the United States; and

(B) by water carrier that is from a place in the United States to another place in the United States; and

(3) by water carrier or by water carrier and motor carrier between a place in the United States and a place outside the United States, to the extent that—

(A) when the transportation is by motor carrier, the transportation is provided in the United States;

(B) when the transportation is by water carrier to a place outside the United States, the transportation is provided by water carrier from a place in the United States to another place in the United States before transshipment from a place in the United States to a place outside the United States; and

(C) when the transportation is by water carrier from a place outside the United States, the transportation is provided by water carrier from a place in the United States to another place in the United States after transshipment to a place in the United States from a place outside the United States.

(b) Definitions.—In this section, the terms "State" and "United States" include the territories and possessions of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 865.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10541 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
§ 887.107 Cooperative Agreements. ( a ) An owner may enter into a Cooperative Agreement with: ( 1 ) A local PHA that operates an FSS program, pursuant to § 984.106 of this title; or
( 2 ) Another owner that operates an FSS program, pursuant to this section.
( b ) Owners that enter into a Cooperative Agreement pursuant to this part, must: ( 1 ) Open any FSS waiting lists to all eligible families residing in the properties covered by the Cooperative Agreement.
( 2 ) Provide periodic escrow amounts to the FSS Program Coordinator for FSS families covered by the Cooperative Agreement under this part. The Cooperative Agreement must provide that each owner is responsible for managing the escrow accounts of their participating families, including calculating and tracking of escrow in accordance with § 984.305 of this title, and set forth the procedures for the sharing of escrow information between the PHA and the owner.
( 3 ) The Cooperative Agreement must clearly specify the terms and conditions of such agreement, including the requirements of this section, and it must include a process for PHAs and owners to communicate with each other about changes in their Action Plan.
#### § 884.219 Overcrowded and underoccupied units.

If HUD or the PHA, as the case may be, determines that a Contract unit assisted under this part is not Decent, Safe, and Sanitary by reason of increase in Family size, or that a Contract unit is larger than appropriate for the size of the Family in occupancy, housing assistance payments with respect to such unit will not be abated, unless the Owner fails to offer the Family a suitable unit as soon as one becomes vacant and ready for occupancy. In the case of an overcrowded unit, if the Owner does not have any suitable units or if no vacancy of a suitable unit occurs within a reasonable time, HUD (or the PHA) will assist the Family in finding a suitable dwelling unit and require the Family to move to such a unit as soon as possible. The Owner may receive housing assistance payments for the vacated unit if he complies with the requirements of § 884.106(c)(1).
§ 1243.101 How will ONRR determine the amount of my bond or other surety instrument? ( a ) The ONRR bond-approving officer may approve your surety if he or she determines that the amount is adequate to guarantee payment. The amount of your surety may vary depending on the form of the surety and how long the surety is effective. ( 1 ) The amount of the ONRR-specified surety instrument must include the principal amount owed under the order plus any accrued interest we determine is owed plus projected interest for a 1-year period.
( 2 ) Treasury book-entry bond or note amounts must be equal to at least 120 percent of the required surety amount.
( b ) If your appeal is not decided within 1 year from the filing date, you must increase the surety amount to cover additional estimated interest for another 1-year period. You must continue to do this annually on the date your appeal was filed. We will determine the additional estimated interest and notify you of the amount so you can amend your surety instrument.
( c ) You may submit a single surety instrument that covers multiple appeals. You may change the instrument to add new amounts under appeal or remove amounts that have been adjudicated in your favor or that you have paid if you: ( 1 ) Amend the single surety instrument annually on the date you filed your first appeal; and
( 2 ) Submit a separate surety instrument for new amounts under appeal until you amend the instrument to cover the new appeals.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1152 How do I conduct well tests? ( a ) When you conduct well tests you must: ( 1 ) Recover fluid from the well completion equivalent to the amount of fluid introduced into the formation during completion, recompletion, reworking, or treatment operations before you start a well test;
( 2 ) Produce the well completion under stabilized rate conditions for at least 6 consecutive hours before beginning the test period;
( 3 ) Conduct the test for at least 4 consecutive hours;
( 4 ) Adjust measured gas volumes to the standard conditions of 14.73 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) and 60 °F for all tests; and
( 5 ) Use measured specific gravity values to calculate gas volumes.
( b ) You may request approval from the Regional Supervisor to conduct a well test using alternative procedures if you can demonstrate test reliability under those procedures.
( c ) The Regional Supervisor may also require you to conduct the following tests and complete them within a specified time period: ( 1 ) A retest or a prolonged test of a well completion if it is determined to be necessary for the proper establishment of a Maximum Production Rate (MPR) or a Maximum Efficient Rate (MER); and
( 2 ) A multipoint back-pressure test to determine the theoretical open-flow potential of a gas well.
( d ) A BSEE representative may witness any well test. Upon request, you must provide advance notice to the Regional Supervisor of the times and dates of well tests.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### §§ 250.892-250.899 [Reserved]
----

| 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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       | By:    | /s/ William G. Dumencu           |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                       |   | William      G. Dumencu          |
|                       |   | Chief      Financial Officer and |
|                       |   | Treasurer                        |
| Dated:      March 17, 2008 |   |                             |

----
### §520. Repealed. Mar. 26, 1934, ch. 88, §1, 48 Stat. 467

Section, act May 23, 1918, ch. 84, §1, 40 Stat. 560, prohibited manufacture, sale, transport, etc., of intoxicating liquors.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Cloid DeWitt

*Neal Cone,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Richard F. Jacobson,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 2, 1992

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 638, is denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

J. Erik Fyrwald, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco Holding Company (Nalco) and Bradley J. Bell, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalcos 10-K financial report (the Report) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the period ending December 31, 2008, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U. S. C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as follows:



| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nalco.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/    J. ERIK
FYRWALDJ. Erik FyrwaldChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 25, 2009




/s/    BRADLEY J.
BELLBradley J. BellExecutive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerDate: February 25, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to Nalco
Holding Company and will be retained by Nalco Holding Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

                            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 National  Scientific  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
A. Grollman,  Director,  Chairman,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Acting Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  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.

Date:  August 16, 2004


/s/ Michael A. Grollman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Grollman
Director, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Acting Chief Financial Officer
§ 594.30 Equal opportunity and other Federal requirements. Each participating neighborhood development organization must certify that it will carry out activities assisted under the program in compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5 and: ( a ) The requirements at 24 CFR part 200, subpart M;
( b ) The prohibitions against discrimination and related requirements of section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5309);
( c ) The requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12181-12189) and implementing regulations at 28 CFR part 36, as applicable;
( d ) The Consolidated Plan of the appropriate unit of general local government; and
( e ) Other Federal requirements as specified in the applicable NOFA and application kit.
[60 FR 16359, Mar. 29, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 5211, Feb. 9, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          47,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,923)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               322,434<F1>
<PP&E>                                          42,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,907)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 505,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          215,715<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           351
<OTHER-SE>                                     213,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   505,117
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,525
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  254,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,367
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<FN>
<F1>Includes real estate held for sale of $143,686.
<F2>Includes notes payable on real estate held for sale of $102,717.
</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 27.22 Methane detector component. ( a ) A methane detector component shall be suitably constructed for incorporation in or with permissible and approved equipment that is operated in gassy mines and tunnels.
( b ) A methane detector shall include: ( 1 ) A method of continuous sampling of the atmosphere in which it functions.
( 2 ) A method for actuating a warning device which shall function automatically at a methane content of the mine atmosphere between 1.0 to 1.5 volume percent. The warning device shall also function automatically at all higher concentrations of methane in the mine atmosphere.
( 3 ) A method for actuating a power-shutoff component, which shall function automatically when the methane content of the mine atmosphere is 2.0 volume percent and at all higher concentrations of methane.
( 4 ) A suitable filter on the sampling intake to prevent dust and moisture from entering and interfering with normal operation. Note:
This requirement for the methane detector may be waived if the design is such as to preclude the need of a filter.
( c ) A methane detector may provide means for sampling at more than one point; provided, the methane detector shall separately detect the methane in the atmosphere at each sampling point with, in MSHA's opinion, sufficient frequency.