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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

RAMON CASIMIRO PERAZA VIERA , Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0 696 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa C ounty

No. CR2013

- 447910

- 001 The Honorable Pamela S. Gates , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Ramon Casimiro Peraza Viera , Florence Petitioner FILED 11-6-2017STATE 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 deliver ed the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Ramon Casimiro Peraza Viera seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his pe tition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 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 petiti on 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 fi nd that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### William E. Gray, Respondent, v. Yale Transport Corp. et al., Appellants.

Motions by appellants for a stay pending appeal denied, without costs, as academic. (See *Gray*v. *Yale Transp. Corp.,*11AD .2d 1069.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
ae man

Recorder’s Stamp

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
PEOPLES UNITED EQUIPMENT FINANCE )
CORP., )
)
Plaintiff, )
r,
v. ) Case No. 12cv842
}
ZONNEX TRANS INC., LUKA UNLIMITED, ) Honorable Judge John F. Grady
INC., and KINGA M. SAVIC, an individual, )
) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OF JUDGMENT
On February 6, 2012, a foreign Judgment was registered in favor of Plaintiff, Peoples

United Equipment Finance Corp., and against Defendant, ZONNEX TRANS INC, whose last
known address is 1106 Dawes, Libertyville, is 60048, in the amount of Five Hundred Forty..

Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Dollars ai 90.02), plus costs of court and

post-judgment interest
Honorable John F. Grady

York Z\,ZOI

AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE RETURN T

Charles E. Harper, Jr.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
300 North LaSalle Street
Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60654
(312) 715-5000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,378,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (38,047)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,713,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,598,948
<PP&E>                                       3,074,025
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,536,183)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,443,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,503,838
<BONDS>                                        591,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,867
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,382)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (21,515)
<SALES>                                      5,488,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,488,206
<CGS>                                        3,685,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,685,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             207,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,557
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
### §2012a. Publicly operated community health centers

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of subsections (f) and (i) 1 of section 2012 of this title and section 2019 of this title, concerning private, nonprofit drug addiction or alcohol treatment and rehabilitation programs, shall henceforth also be applicable to publicly operated community health centers.

(Pub. L. 99–88, title I, §100, Aug. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 297.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subsections (f) and (i) of section 2012 of this title, referred to in text, were redesignated subsecs. (h) and (n), respectively, by Pub. L. 110–246, title IV, §4115(b)(1)(M), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1867. Subsec. (n) was subsequently redesignated (m) by Pub. L. 113–79, title IV, §4030(a)(4), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 813.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985, and not as part of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Reference to Community, Migrant, Public Housing, or Homeless Health Center Considered Reference to Health Center

Reference to community health center, migrant health center, public housing health center, or homeless health center considered reference to health center, see section 4(c) of Pub. L. 104–299, set out as a note under section 254b of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

1 See References in Text note below.
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 of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 2, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert W. Cremin, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 6, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert W. Cremin                           
|                    |  |     |  | Robert W. Cremin                               
|                    |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
- 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

Laws & GuidanceGENERAL

About FOIA | About the Privacy Act | **FOIA Reading Rooms**Making a Request | FAQs | Contacts | Links

## FOIA e-Reading Room

### Final Statements of Policy 

- Office for Civil Rights Reading Room includes policy documents and related materials issued by the Department's Office for Civil Rights. 
- Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Archived Information and Reading Room includes policy documents, information related to previous administrations or programs, most frequently requested OESE FOIA information, links to U.S. Department of Education information on how to make a FOIA request, FOIA request guidelines, FOIA annual reports, and other FOIA-related documents. 
- Legislation, Regulations, and Policy Guidance

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable viewShare this page |
|        |

## 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

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

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
Exhibit 99.2

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 Tellabs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 27, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Birck, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
***/s Michael J. BirckMichael J. BirckChief Executive Officer

 ***
#### 1452.228-71 Aircraft and General Public Liability Insurance.

As prescribed in 1428.306-70(c)(1), insert the following clause:

# Aircraft and General Public Liability Insurance Department of the Interior (MAR 1989)

(a) The Contractor, at the Contractor's expense, agrees to maintain, during the continuance of this contract, aircraft liability and general public liability insurance with limits of liability for:

(1) Bodily injury to or death of aircraft passengers of not less than $75,000 for any one passenger and a limit for each occurrence in any one aircraft of at least an amount equal to the sum produced by multiplying $75,000 by 75 percent of the total number of passenger seats installed in the aircraft;

(2) Bodily injury to or death of persons (excluding passengers) of not less than $75,000 for any one person in any one occurrence and $300,000 for occurrence; and

(3) Property damage of not less than $100,000 for each occurrence; or

(4) a single limit of liability for each occurrence equal to or greater than the combined required minimums set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this clause.

(b) The Contractor also agrees to maintain worker's compensation and other legally required insurance with respect to the Contractor's own employees and agents.

(End of clause)
FILED 12/5/2012

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

MB

Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:69
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:70
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:71
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:72
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:73
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:74
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:75
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:76
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:77
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:78
Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 14 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:79
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>      5
 <MULTIPLIER>   1,000
        
 <S>                                   <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
 <PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1997
 <CASH>                                4,702
 <SECURITIES>                          0
 <RECEIVABLES>                         8,227
 <ALLOWANCES>                          3,602
 <INVENTORY>                           39,360
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                      63,091
 <PP&E>                                41,846
 <DEPRECIATION>                        16,696
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                        100,581
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 92,210
 <BONDS>                               358
 <COMMON>                              279
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
 <PREFERRED>                           0
 <OTHER-SE>                            496
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          100,581
 <SALES>                               49,375
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                      49,375
 <CGS>                                 39,358
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                         22,020
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                      18
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                      1,676
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    687
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                       (12,021)
 <INCOME-TAX>                          0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (12,021)
 <DISCONTINUED>                        0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
 <CHANGES>                             0
 <NET-INCOME>                          (12,021)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.43)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.43)
                                       
 
</TABLE>
#### HALLENBORG v. GREENE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Trial—Continuance—Discretion op Court.

The exercise of the court’s discretion in granting a stay of a trial is subject to review.

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Axel W. Hallenborg against William C. Greene and others. From an order granting to stay trial and to strike case from calendar, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. See 73 N. Y. Supp. 403.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and HATCH, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Alfred B. Cruikshank, for appellant.

James Byrne, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The order granting a stay of the trial of this action, and from which this appeal is taken, must be reversed, for the same reason which induced the reversal of the order requiring the plaintiff to reply to the amended answer of the defendant, the appeal from which last-named order is decided herewith. After the cause had been set down for trial, the defendant Greene and others obtained leave to serve an amended answer, and that motion was granted, with the provision that it should not delay the trial of the action. If the court below had discretion to stay the trial of this action, it was a judicial discretion, and subject to review by this court, and, under all the circumstances disclosed in the papers, it was neither just nor proper to exercise that discretion to further delay the plaintiff in the enforcement of his rights in the courts of this state in which his action had been pending for so many months, and had been diligently pressed for trial before the amended answer was served.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for a stay denied, with $10 costs.
### Part III—Issuance of Entry Documents
12.505 Applicability of certain laws to contracts for the acquisition of COTS items. COTS items are a subset of commercial products. Therefore, any laws listed in sections 12.503 and 12.504 are also inapplicable or modified in their applicability to contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of COTS items. In addition, the following laws are not applicable to contracts for the acquisition of COTS items: ( a ) ( 1 ) The portion of 41 U.S.C. 8302, American Materials Required for Public Use, paragraph (a)(1) that reads “substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States,” Buy American—Supplies, domestic content test, except as provided in 25.101(a)(2)(ii) (see 52.225-1 and 52.225-3).
( 2 ) The portion of 41 U.S.C. 8303, Contracts for Public Works, paragraph (a)(2) that reads “substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States,” Buy American—Construction Materials, domestic content test, except as provided in 25.201(b)(2)(ii)(see 52.225-9 and 52.225-11).
( b ) 42 U.S.C. 6962(c)(3)(A), Certification and Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material.
( c ) Compliance Plan and Certification Requirement, section 1703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), Title XVII, Ending trafficking in Government Contracting (see 52.222-50(h) and 52.222-56).
[74 2721, Jan. 15, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 24200, Apr. 29, 2014; 80 FR 4987, Jan. 29, 2015; 86 FR 6186, Jan. 19, 2021; 86 FR 61024, Nov. 4, 2021]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen UnitedStatesCourthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

January 2, 2014

To: Thomas G. Bruton

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 Northern District of Illinois

 Chicago , IL 60604-0000

No.: 13-2388

KATHY TRAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

TRITON COLLEGE, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees

 Originating Case Information:

 District Court No: 1:11-cv-07911

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to

costs shall constitute the mandate.

 RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS: No record to be returned

NOTE TO COUNSEL:

If any physical and large documentary exhibits have been filed in the above-entitled cause, they are

Case: 13-2388 Document: 00712144335 Filed: 01/02/2014 Pages: 2
to be withdrawn ten (10) days from the date of this notice. Exhibits not withdrawn during this period

will be disposed of.

Please acknowledge receipt of these documents on the enclosed copy of this notice.

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

Received above mandate and record, if any, from the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit.

Date: Received by:

_________________________ ____________________________________

form name: c7_Mandate(form ID: 135)

Case: 13-2388 Document: 00712144335 Filed: 01/02/2014 Pages: 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.R, D.R., J.R.,

J.N.R, K.L.R, AND A.M.G.

, CHILDREN,

Appellant

, **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 2 2

- 00164

- C V

Appeal from the

65 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021DCM3784 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant M.G. ’ s second motion for extension of time within

which to file the brief until November 6 , 2022

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Celia A. Villasenor

, the Appellant M.G. ’ s attorney,

prepare the Appellant M.G. ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 6

,

2022

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 2 6 th day of October , 2022.

PER CURIAM

B efore R odriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10771

Summary Calendar

KEVIN BERNARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NFN NWANKO, Jailer, 1st Watch, Dallas County Sheriff’s 

Department; NFN SHIDERLY, Jailer, 1st Watch, Dallas County 

Sheriff’s Department,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Norther District of Texas

(3:02-CV-01736-BF-R)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendants appeal the denial of summary judgment; they claimed

qualified immunity. Denial of qualified immunity is immediately

appealable only when based on issues of law, rather than on genuine

issues of material fact. See Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 350

(5th Cir. 1999). “[I]f the district court concludes that the

summary judgment record raises a genuine issue of material fact

with respect to whether the defense of qualified immunity is
2

applicable, then that decision is not immediately appealable....”

Id. at 351.

The denial of qualified immunity was based on starkly

differing versions of the facts surrounding the altercation between

plaintiff and defendants, which were offered through competent

summary judgment evidence. The denial was based on genuine issues

of material fact as to the threat perceived by defendants, the need

for the application of force, the relationship between the need and

amount of force used, and the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.

See Palmer, 193 F.3d at 351. 

DISMISSED
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50463

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAURO RINCON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-141

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Through his plea agreement, Lauro Rincon waived his right to

challenge his sentence. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d

651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Rincon's challenge to his fine is not

cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Segler,

37 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.