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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DANIEL JEREMIAH JAMES, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0331 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-005976-001

The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

Daniel Jeremiah James, San Luis

Petitioner

FILED 1-13-2022
STATE v. JAMES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge David B. Gass, and Judge James 

B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIUM:

¶1 Petitioner Daniel Jeremiah James seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s latest 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, 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 review. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies 

relief.
Eligible applicants  include institutions of higher education (IHEs), local education agencies  (LEAs), nonprofit organizations, state education agencies (SEAs), and other organizations  and/or agencies

In addition to the  categories above, public charter schools that are LEAs under state law, other  public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, for-profit organizations,  outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the  U.S. Virgin Islands), freely associated states, and Indian tribes or tribal organizations.
United Technologies Corporation Savings Restoration Plan Summary Description



 Exhibit 10.37 
 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SAVINGS RESTORATION PLAN 
 The
following is a summary of the United Technologies Corporation Savings Restoration Plan (the “SRP”) which will be established to compensate for contribution limitations imposed on the United Technologies Corporation (“UTC” or the
“Company”) tax qualified 401(k) plan (i.e. the United Technologies Corporation Employee Savings Plan) by the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). The SRP will be effective January 1, 2010 and will be open to all eligible
non-bargaining employees of UTC and its subsidiaries who receive pensionable earnings over the IRC tax qualified plan compensation limit (currently $245,000). 
 SRP participants may elect to contribute up to 6% of pre-tax pensionable earnings above the IRC compensation limit. The Company will provide a 60% matching contribution on participant contributions; the
same formula as in the United Technologies Corporation Employee Savings Plan. The Company match will be made in UTC deferred stock units. 
 Accounts established under the SRP will be credited with earnings (or losses) on hypothetical investment accounts chosen by each participant. There will be no diversification of Company-matched UTC stock units. 
 Participants will be 100% vested in their contributions and will vest in the Company match after three years of service. The SRP will be unfunded and each
participant’s interest in his or her account will be those of a general unserved creditor of the Company.
#### Sonya M. DANIELS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gloria HENRY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-15728.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 13, 2008.

Filed June 2, 2008.

Janice M. Lagerlof, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Allan Yannow, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: KLEINFELD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Sonya M. Daniels was convicted under California law of second degree murder, felony child endangerment (which included great bodily injury), and misdemeanor child endangerment. Daniels was sentenced to serve fifteen years to life impx’isonment for the murder conviction and concurrent tex’ms on the other convictions. After her direct appeals and state post-conviction remedies were exhausted, Daniels filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was denied by the district court. We AFFIRM.

The Petitioner contends that her constitutional right to present a defense and hex-right to a faix- trial were violated when the trial court prevented her from introducing evidence pertaining to Battered Women’s Syndrome. The state court’s decision to exclude the evidence was not “contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application *664of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Based on the defense she offered at trial, that evidence was not relevant under California law. The Petitioner’s defense essentially was that the child appeared to be fine until the day he died. She did not argue that she was unable to feed her son or obtain proper care for him because she was a battered spouse. “The accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is ... inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” *Taylor v. Illinois,*484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988).

Further, the trial judge did not bar the Petitioner from establishing a foundation to make the evidence relevant. Upon review of the record, we find that the trial judge left the door open to the admission of testimony pertaining to Battered Women’s Syndrome, if Petitioner could establish its relevance. The Petitioner, however, failed to lay a proper foundation. Accordingly, the district court properly denied relief.

The other issues presented by the Petitioner are without merit. For the reasons already noted, the Petitioner is unable to show prejudice from the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in failing to brief the Battered Women’s Syndrome issue on direct appeal. The Petitioner did not factually develop the argument that the prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument rendered her trial fundamentally unfair.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4750 DATE 4/11/2013

CASE

TITLE

Ira Gilbert, et al vs. Zimmer, Inc., et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Agreed motion of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

[6] granted. 

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

ETV

12C4750 Ira Gilbert, et al vs. Zimmer, Inc., et al Page 1 of 1
March 24, 2011

Mathy Stanislaus via email aastanislaus@epa.gov

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Nancy Stoner via email stoner.nancy@epa.gov

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Programs

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

RE: International Food Additives Council 2007 Petition for Rulemaking Correction, CAS

Numbers in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sectio n 302.4, Table 302.4

– List of

Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities, Appendix A to Section 302.4

– Sequential

CAS Registry Number List of CERCLA Hazardous Substances, and Section 116.4 Designation

of H azardous Substances

Dear Ms. Bodine and Mr. Grumbles:

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is an association representing companies who produce high

quality substances used worldwide as food additives, including Sodium Trimetaphosphate (STMP), Sodium

Tripolyphosphate (STPP) and Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP).

In March 2007, IFAC submitted a Petition, pursuant to CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, and the Administrative

Procedure Act, requesting that EPA correct a technical error in listing the CAS R egistry Numbers for STMP,

STPP and SHMP as hazardous substances under 40 CFR §§ 116.4 and 302.4. T he grounds for this request, set

forth in IFAC’s petition , are (1) that EPA’s Clean Water Act §116.4 rule lists Sodium phosphate, tribasic but

instead of the CAS number for this substance, 1 incorrectly provides the CAS numbers for STMP, STPP and

SHMP, and (2) this error is compounded in CERCLA §302.4 rules, which rely on and repeat the incorrect CAS

designations from §116.4.

To dat e, to the best of our knowle dge no action has been taken on IFAC’s petition. We urge EPA to act on

IFAC ’s request and to provide IFAC with the status of that request. For your convenience, a copy of the IFAC

petition is attached.

Respectfully submitted,



# Lyn O’Brien Nabors

Lyn O’Brien Nabors

President

Enclosure

Cc: Lynn Beasley @ Beasley.lynn@epa.gov

1 The correct CAS numbers for Sodium phosphate , tribasic are 7601

- 54

- 9, 10101

- 89

- 0, and 10361

- 89

- 4.
# CA2017039EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 39/1

---

COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY OFFICE

Call for expression of interest in the appointment as Chairperson of the Board of Appeal

(COM/2017/20018)

(2017/C 039 A/01)

The Community Plant Variety Office is seeking to appoint the Chairperson of its Board of Appeal.

Applicants must be a citizen of one of the Member States of the European Union.

The Chairperson shall be appointed by the Council from a list of candidates which shall be proposed by the Commission after obtaining the opinion of the Administrative Council of the Office. Information on the remuneration may be acquired on request to the secretariat of the Board of Appeal (Community Plant Variety Office, 3, boulevard Maréchal-Foch, BP 10121, F-49101 Angers Cedex 02). The Community Plant Variety Office and the Commission apply an equal opportunities policy.

The full call for expression of interest and the link to the on-line application form are available at the following address: https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/

The delay for the receipt of applications is 8 March 2017 (see details in the application instructions).

8 March 2017

---
AAM-12-137-E January 4, 2012

Exemption No. 10423 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1391

Mr. Klaus Thalinger

Airlink LLC

2 Lafleur Road Waterville, ME 04901

Dear Mr. Thalinger:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By submission received December 19, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Airlink LLC (Airlink) and Air New England LLC (Air New England) for an exemption to allow Ai rlink and Air New England, which are operatingunder separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover their safetysensitive employees under one testing program. The FAA finds that you require relief from part 120 of 14 CFR.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Airlink and Air New England.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Airlink LLC and Air New England LLC an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Airlink and Air New England, which are operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover their safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Airlink and Air New Engla nd are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Air New England LLC part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
22.1701 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to all acquisitions.
( b ) The requirement at 22.1703(c) for a certification and compliance plan applies only to any portion of a contract or subcontract that— ( 1 ) Is for supplies, other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, to be acquired outside the United States, or services to be performed outside the United States; and
( 2 ) Has an estimated value that exceeds $550,000.
[80 FR 4987, Jan. 29, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020]
#### 252.215-7007 Notice of Intent to Resolicit.

As prescribed at 215.371-6, use the following provision:

# Notice of Intent To Resolicit (JUN 2012)

This solicitation provides offerors fewer than 30 days to submit proposals. In the event that only one offer is received in response to this solicitation, the Contracting Officer may cancel the solicitation and resolicit for an additional period of at least 30 days in accordance with 215.371-2.

(End of provision)

[77 FR 39139, June 29, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 65217, Oct. 31, 2013]
15.403-5 Instructions for submission of certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data. ( a ) Taking into consideration the policy at 15.402, the contracting officer shall specify in the solicitation (see 15.408 (l) and (m))— ( 1 ) Whether certified cost or pricing data are required;
( 2 ) That, in lieu of submitting certified cost or pricing data, the offeror may submit a request for exception from the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data;
( 3 ) Any requirement for data other than certified cost or pricing data; and
( 4 ) The requirement for necessary preaward or postaward access to offeror's records.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Format for submission of certified cost or pricing data.* When certification is required, the contracting officer may require submission of certified cost or pricing data in the format indicated in Table 15-2 of 15.408, specify an alternative format, or permit submission in the contractor's format (See 15.408(l)(1)), unless the data are required to be submitted on one of the termination forms specified in subpart 49.6.
( 2 ) *Format for submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data.* When required by the contracting officer, data other than certified cost or pricing data may be submitted in the offeror's own format unless the contracting officer decides that use of a specific format is essential for evaluating and determining that the price is fair and reasonable and the format has been described in the solicitation.
( 3 ) *Format for submission of data supporting forward pricing rate agreements.* Data supporting forward pricing rate agreements or final indirect cost proposals shall be submitted in a form acceptable to the contracting officer.
[75 FR 53145, Aug. 30, 2010]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Jacques Rivera

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04428

Honorable Joan B. Gottschall

Reynaldo Guevara, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, September 24,2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Mary M. Rowland:Motion hearing held on

9/24/2013. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [64] is granted in part and denied in part. First,

the parties have identified files involving closed Area 5 homicide cases covering a seven

year period where a line−up was utilized. Defendant shall produce the entirety of those

files to plaintiff at plaintiff's expense. Second, the plaintiff wants to limit the search of

files to Area 5. The City wishes to expand the scope of the closed files searched for an

additional three years and to the entire City. The City is permitted to define the parameters

of the project in this regard. Counsel for the City shall notify plaintiff by 10/4/2013 of her

final decision regarding t he years to be searched and the geographic areas of the City to

be included. Finally, there are presumably open homicide files that are maintained at Area

5 that cover crimes committed during the pertinent time period where a line−up was used.

The Ci ty has articulated business and safety concerns about having counsel for plaintiff

attend a review of those files. Defense counsel is given until 10/25/2013 to review those

Area 5 open files. If the City wants to rely on any of those investigations , plaintiff's

counsel will be permitted to observe counsel for the defendant review all the pertinent

open Area 5 files. Those that contain a line−up, like the closed files, will be produced to

plaintiff, at plaintiff's expense. Further, a s defense counsel reviews the Area 5 open files,

any open files housed at Area 5 that correspond to closed files (files having the same RD

number) already being produced shall be produced to plaintiff, again at plaintiff's expense.

Mailed notice (gel, )

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 an 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

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 71 Filed: 09/24/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:851
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 71 Filed: 09/24/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:851
# C_2017045EN.01000301.xml

| 11.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 February 2017

(2017/C 45/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0629 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4344 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85290 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4873 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0669 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9065 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,45 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2953 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5002 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9173 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3905 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3965 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2473 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4798 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5112 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 222,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1866 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3120 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4595 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 134,44 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7241 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,096 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,2757 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,302 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3070 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5519 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,1435 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0629

JPY

Japanese yen

120,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4344

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85290

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4873

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0669

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9065

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,45

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2953

RON

Romanian leu

4,5002

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9173

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3905

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3965

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2473

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4798

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5112

KRW

South Korean won

1 222,56

ZAR

South African rand

14,1866

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3120

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4595

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 134,44

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7241

PHP

Philippine peso

53,096

RUB

Russian rouble

62,2757

THB

Thai baht

37,302

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3070

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5519

INR

Indian rupee

71,1435

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### 225.7012-1 Restriction.

In accordance with Section 8112 of Public Law 100-202, and similar sections in subsequent DoD appropriations acts, do not purchase a supercomputer unless it is manufactured in the United States.

[68 FR 15627, Mar. 31, 2003]
Case: 1:12-cv-04468 Document #: 3-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-04468 Document #: 3-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cv-04468 Document #: 3-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cv-04468 Document #: 3-1 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:19