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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

RAMON CASIMIRO PERAZA VIERA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0696 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-447910-001

The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Ramon Casimiro Peraza Viera, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 11-6-2017
STATE v. PERAZA VIERA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief 

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Ramon Casimiro Peraza Viera seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s 

second successive 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 (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 (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 review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Three-Five
Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jack L. Saltich, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director 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 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Jack L. SaltichJack L. SaltichPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
 Date: August 9, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

M.G.S., et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07934

Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

Carolyn Toerpe, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, August 6, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Pursuant to the District

Judge's order dismissing the case [60], all matters relating to the referral of this action

having been resolved, this matter is returned to the assigned judge. Referral terminated.

Mailed notice(ep, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07934 Document #: 63 Filed: 08/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:217
#### 14.402-2 Classified bids.

The general public may not attend bid openings for classified acquisitions. A bidder or its representative may attend and record the results if the individual has the appropriate security clearance. The contracting officer also may make the bids available at a later time to properly cleared individuals who represent bidders. No public record shall be made of bids or bid prices received in response to classified invitations for bids.

[67 FR 6114, Feb. 8, 2002]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Carlos Lorenzo Gallegos, * From the 238th District Court

 of Midland County

 Trial Court No. CR44618.

Vs. No. 11-15-00325-CR * January 11, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

 Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

 by assignment)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgments below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgments of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
M. P. No. 75-27.

#### Kim E. Harvey, *a minor by Her Natural Guardian and Next Friend, Her Mother,*Mary Ann Harvey, *931*et al. v.*Clark Sammartino *et al.*

*Hawkins & Hoopis, Harry J. Hoopis,*for plaintiffs-respondents. *Hanson, Curran, Bowen & Parks, Kervneth R. Neal,*for defendants-petitioners.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a Superior Court order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a default judgment under Super. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Absent unusual circumstances, we will not review such an order on appeal or by writ of certiorari, and no such unusual circumstances exist in this case. *Griffin*v. *Rahill,*112 R. I. 549, 313 A.2d 374 (1973); *Giarrusso*v. *Corrigan,*108 R. I. 471, 276 A.2d 750 (1971). Petition for writ of certiorari is denied accordingly.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

July 10, 2019 

Before 

 KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

 DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge 

 DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2040 

JOHN DOE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, 

Acting Secretary of Homeland 

Security, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 1:15-cv-11168 

John Z. Lee, Judge. 

O R D E R 

 On consideration of the letter of the Government requesting correction of the 

opinion in this appeal issued on July 3, 2019, the opinion is amended on page 3 by 

replacing “and up to $3,000,000 for a new commercial enterprise located in an area with 

an unemployment rate significantly below the national average” with “and $1,000,000 for 

a new commercial enterprise located in any other area.”
1480.903 Award in the face of challenge. ( a ) Award of a contract in the face of challenge may be made on the basis of the CO's written determination that the challenged offeror's representation is valid. ( 1 ) This determination of validity is final unless it is appealed to the Director of PAM and the CO is notified of the appeal before making award.
( 2 ) If an award was made before the CO received notice of appeal, the award is presumed to be valid.
( b ) After receiving a challenge involving an offeror being considered for award, the CO must not award the contract until the CO has determined the validity of the representation. Award may be made in the face of a timely challenge when the CO determines in writing that an award must be made to protect the public interest, is urgently required, or a prompt award will otherwise be advantageous to the Government.
( c ) If a timely challenge on representation is filed with the CO and received before award in response to a specific offer and solicitation, the CO must notify eligible offerors within one day that the solicitation will not be awarded due to a pending challenge. The CO also may ask eligible offerors to extend the period for acceptance of their proposals.
( d ) If a challenge on representation is filed with the CO and received after award in response to a specific offer and solicitation, the CO need not suspend contract performance or terminate the awarded contract unless the CO believes that an award may be invalidated and a delay would prejudice the Government's interest. However, if contract performance is to be suspended or terminated, a mutual no cost agreement will be sought.
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION, 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended May 31, 2003 (the "Report") by Farmland Industries, Inc. (the"Company"), the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certified pursuant to 18 U.S.C., ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  July 15, 2003

/s/ STEVEN R. RHODESSteven R. RhodesChief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typedform within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Farmland Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Farmland Industries,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §724. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Apr. 21, 1934, ch. 157, §24, 48 Stat. 607, authorized Secretary of Agriculture to develop new and extended uses for cotton, and made available not to exceed $500,000 out of funds available to Secretary under section 612 of this title.
15.606-1 Receipt and initial review. ( a ) Before initiating a comprehensive evaluation, the agency contact point shall determine if the proposal— ( 1 ) Is a valid unsolicited proposal, meeting the requirements of 15.603(c);
( 2 ) Is suitable for submission in response to an existing agency requirement (see 15.602);
( 3 ) Is related to the agency mission;
( 4 ) Contains sufficient technical information and cost-related or price-related information for evaluation;
( 5 ) Has overall scientific, technical, or socioeconomic merit;
( 6 ) Has been approved by a responsible official or other representative authorized to obligate the offeror contractually; and
( 7 ) Complies with the marking requirements of 15.609.
( b ) If the proposal meets these requirements, the contact point shall promptly acknowledge receipt and process the proposal.
( c ) If a proposal is rejected because the proposal does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subsection, the agency contact point shall promptly inform the offeror of the reasons for rejection in writing and of the proposed disposition of the unsolicited proposal.
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 17769, Apr. 5, 2004]
Order filed August 12, 2014

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 14

- 00320

- CV

___________ DARYL GREEN , Appellant

V.

GROCERS SUPPLY CO. I NC , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 & Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 530200003

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter

for the County Court at Law No. 3 & Probate Court informed this court that

appellant had not made arrangements for pa yment for the reporter’s record. On

April 30, 2014 , the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider

and decide those issues that do not require a reporter = s record unless appellant,

within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proo f of payment for the record.

See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty

days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
### §102. Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(13), 66 Stat. 279, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

Section, acts Feb. 5, 1917, ch. 29, §23, 39 Stat. 892; May 14, 1937, ch. 181, 50 Stat. 164; Oct. 29, 1945, ch. 438, 59 Stat. 551; Oct. 15, 1949, ch. 695, §5(a), 63 Stat. 880, related to administration of immigration laws. See sections 1103, 1223(a), and 1260 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Blake, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on November 24, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw is granted. (See Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with *679appellant's assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Appellant's pro so brief has been considered and it also raises no meritorious points. Concur-Kunferman. J. P.. Luniano. Lane and Sandler, JJ,
#### Julia Walsh, Appellant, v. Thomas Walsh, Respondent.

In an action for separation on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment and nonsupport, plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 25, 1964, granting her motion to reargue, as, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s original decision which had denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary support, counsel fees and the exlucsive possession of the parties’ apartment. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; and the following disposition made of plaintiff’s original motion for alimony, counsel fees and exclusive possession of the apartment: (1) alimony *pendente lite*is denied, with leave to the plaintiff, if so advised, to renew at Special Term her request for such relief in the event that the defendant should fail to maintain her and the family in the same style and manner in which he had maintained them before the marital differences arose; (2) a counsel fee *pendente lite,*in the sum of $500, is awarded to the plaintiff; the defendant is directed to pay to her one half of said sum within 10 days after the service on his attorney of a copy of the order entered hereon, and the other half on or before the day of trial; and such award is made without prejudice to the trial court’s award of further and additional counsel fees should they be warranted by the proof adduced upon the trial; and (3) the exclusive possession of the apartment is denied. In our opinion the facts stated by the *938plaintiff are sufficient to show a reasonable probability of her ultimate success. The fact that she has an income of her own does not deprive her of a right to a counsel fee *pendente lite*from her husband *(Hirschberg*v. *Hirschberg,*7 A D 2d 869). Nor does the fact that she may have some personal assets deprive her of the right to such counsel fee where the personal assets are not sufficient to enable her to prosecute the action *(Scheideler*v. *Scheideler,*10 A D 2d 991; *Kaiser*v. *Kaiser,*262 App. Div. 835). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Babin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
15.204 Contract format. The use of a uniform contract format facilitates preparation of the solicitation and contract as well as reference to, and use of, those documents by offerors, contractors, and contract administrators. The uniform contract format need not be used for the following: ( a ) Construction and architect-engineer contracts (see part 36).
( b ) Subsistence contracts.
( c ) Supplies or services contracts requiring special contract formats prescribed elsewhere in this part that are inconsistent with the uniform format.
( d ) Letter requests for proposals (see 15.203(e)).
( e ) Contracts exempted by the agency head or designee.
#### POPKIN, Appellant, v. MILES, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Barnet Popkin against Henry Miles.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOVERVIEW

*Note:  These Congressional Budget Justifications do not include State tables. For the latest State tables, please visit the Department's State Tables page*.Volume I- ESEA Overview  PDF (78KB) 
- Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity  PDF (1.4MB) 
- School Readiness  PDF (1.4MB) 
- Impact Aid   PDF (1.2MB)
- Education Improvement Programs  PDF (2.0MB)
- Supporting Student Success  PDF (2.0MB)
- Indian Student Education  PDF (1.2MB)  ****)
- Innovation and Instructional Teams  PDF (1.9MB)
- English Learner Education  PDF (622KB)
- Special Education  PDF (1.6MB)
- Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research  PDF (1.9MB)
Volume II- American Printing House for the Blind  PDF (73KB)
- National Technical Institute for the Deaf  PDF (172KB)
- Gallaudet University  PDF (228KB)
- Career, Technical, and Adult Education  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Overview  PDF (232KB)
- Student Financial Assistance  PDF (1.8MB)
- TEACH Grants  PDF (1.0MB)
- Student Loans Overview  PDF (1.2MB)
- Higher Education  PDF (2.7MB)
- Howard University  PDF (222KB)
- College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program Account  PDF (162KB)
- Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account  PDF (301KB)
- Institute of Education Sciences  PDF (675KB)
- Salaries and Expenses Overview  PDF (553KB)
- Program Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Student Aid Administration  PDF (1.4MB)
- Office for Civil Rights  PDF (474KB)
- Office of Inspector General  PDF (343KB)
 Printable view
  Last Modified: 03/05/2014
How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Transforming Teaching
- Family and Community Engagement
- Early Learning

 
President's Education Budget RequestBudget TablesBudget NewsED Budget Process and Calendar
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
### §7756. Preemption

#### (a) Regulation of foreign commerce

No State or political subdivision of a State may regulate in foreign commerce any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order—

(1) to control a plant pest or noxious weed;

(2) to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or

(3) prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.

#### (b) Regulation of interstate commerce

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision of a State may regulate the movement in interstate commerce of any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order to control a plant pest or noxious weed, eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed, or prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed, if the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the dissemination of the biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed within the United States.

#### (2) Exceptions

#### (A) Regulations consistent with Federal regulations

A State or a political subdivision of a State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or plant products that are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or orders issued by the Secretary.

#### (B) Special need

A State or political subdivision of a State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds that are in addition to the prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the Secretary, if the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §436, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 453.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
#### 1223.303 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.223-70, Removal or Disposal of Hazardous Substances—Applicable Licenses and Permits, in solicitations and contracts involving the removal or disposal of hazardous waste material.
# Rupprecht Law P. A. 3 24 Datura Street , Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222 - 6979 | E : jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com August 10 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 - 140, Washington, DC 20590 RE: Receipt of confidentially submitted documents for Enviroskycam Dear Sir or Madam: Enviroskycam ( Exemption #11815 in Docket ID: FAA - 2015 - 1101) confidentially submitted to 333exemptions@faa.gov the follow documents:

1) Aircraft Flight Manual - DJI Phantom 3 2) Aircraft Flight Manual - Action Drone AD - 2 A receipt was obtained on Tue, August 04, 2015 . If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222 - 6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.