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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 19

- 0297 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2006

- 163491

- 001 The Honorable Warren J. Granville , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office , Phoenix By Andrea L. Kever Counsel for Respondent Edgar Javier Enriquez , Safford Petitioner FILED 5-26-2020STATE v. ENRIQUEZ Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

W E I N Z W E I G , Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Edgar Javier Enriquez 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 first 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

co urt’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.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.1350**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Solera Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for thequarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned chiefexecutive officer and chief financial officer of the Company, certifies, to thebest knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of1934; and

2. The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
|                              | ** ** | ** **                   |
|------------------------------|------------|------------------------------|
| /s/ Tony Aquila              | ** ** | /s/ Jack  Pearlstein         |
| **Tony  Aquila**             | ** ** | **Jack  Pearlstein**         |
| **Chief  Executive Officer** | ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer** |
|                         |       |                         |
| Date: June 25, 2007          |       | Date: June 25, 2007          |

 

----
#### § 1782.7 Grants.

Servicing actions relating to Agency grants are governed by the provisions of several regulations and executive orders, including, but not limited to, 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by 2 CFR part 400, and 2 CFR parts 415, 416, 417, and 418 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12803. Grantees remain responsible for property acquired with grant funds in accordance with terms of a grant agreement and applicable regulations.

[79 FR 76006, Dec. 19, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.56 Real property located in Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). ( a ) *Approval official's scope of authority.* Any action that is not in conflict with the limitations in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section shall not be undertaken until the approval official has consulted with the appropriate Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Regional Director may or may not concur that the proposed action does or does not violate the provisions of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). Pursuant to the requirements of the CBRA, and except as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, no maintenance or repair action may be taken for property located within a CBRS where: ( 1 ) The action goes beyond maintenance, replacement-in-kind, reconstruction, or repair and would result in the expansion of any roads, structures or facilities. Water and waste disposal facilities as well as community facilities may be improved to the extent required to meet health and safety requirements but may not be improved or expanded to serve additional users, patients, or residents;
( 2 ) The action is inconsistent with the purposes of the CBRA; or
( 3 ) The property to be repaired or maintained was initially the subject of a financial transaction that violated the CBRA.
( b ) *Administrator's review.* Any proposed maintenance or repair action that does not conform to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section must be forwarded to the Administrator for review and approval. Approval will not be granted unless the Administrator determines, through consultation with the Department of the Interior, that the proposed action does not violate the provisions of the CBRA.
( c ) *Emergency provisions.* In emergency situations to prevent imminent loss of life, imminent substantial damage to the inventory property or the disruption of utility service, the approval official may take whatever minimum steps are necessary to prevent such loss or damage without first consulting with the appropriate Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, the Regional Director must be immediately notified of any such emergency action.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40562 

Conference Calendar

 

MARCO ANTONIO ZAPATA, III,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL PURDY, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CV-561

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

December 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Antonio Zapata III (“Zapata”), federal prisoner

# 24879-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition. He alleges that his due process rights were

violated after a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) found him

in violation of Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) Code # 113A for aiding

another inmate in the possession of marijuana and sanctioned him

with the loss of 41 days’ good-conduct time. Zapata argues that

there was no evidence to support the DHO’s finding.
No. 99-40562

-2-

Zapata’s argument fails. “[P]rison disciplinary proceedings

will be overturned only where there is no evidence whatsoever to

support the decision of the prison officials.” Reeves v.

Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994). “A de novo factual

review is not required.” Id. “[T]he requirements of due process

are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the

prison disciplinary board to revoke good-time credits.” 

Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst., Walpole v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Because some evidence supports

the DHO’s decision to revoke good-time credits, this court

AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 200]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ200.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 308]]

Public Law 109-200
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
1826 Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Maryland State 
     Delegate Lena K. Lee Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Mar. 20, 
                         2006 -  [H.R. 4107]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1826 
Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Maryland State Delegate Lena K. Lee Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Maryland State Delegate Lena 
K. Lee Post Office Building''.

    Approved March 20, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4107:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Dec. 13, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Mar. 3, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00075CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7502

RAYMOND PILKINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-98-335)

Submitted: December 8, 1998 Decided: December 29, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Pilkington, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Pilkington seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Pilkington v. Angelone, No. CA-98-335 (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1998).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**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 Superior Well Services, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas W. Stoelk, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of thisSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.         By:                                                /s/ Thomas W. Stoelk    Thomas W. Stoelk    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   Date: November 7, 2006This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany or the certifying officer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toSuperior Well Services, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
36
98-1970.

#### State v. Tibbetts.

Hamilton C.P. B9708596. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution pending final disposition in this court,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted.
EXHIBIT 10.4


 


Summary of Oral Agreement for Payment of Services


between Cephalon, Inc.


and


its Board of Directors


 


The Stock Option and
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors reviews annually the cash compensation
paid to members of the Board.  During
such review, the Committee compares the cash compensation to that paid by other
companies within its peer group, as determined by a third party consultant.  Prior to July 2004, non-employee members
of Cephalon’s Board of Directors received an annual retainer of $30,000 and a
$3,000 fee for each Board meeting attended. 
Additionally, on an annual basis, the members of each of the Board’s
committees received an $8,000 annual retainer for each committee
membership.  While conducting the most
recent compensation review in July 2004, the Stock Option and Compensaton
Committee recommended an increase in the annual cash retainer for committee
chairs to $12,000, and the annual cash retainer for committee members to
$10,000.  The annual base cash retainer
for all Board members remains at $30,000, and per meeting fees remain $3,000.  The Board of Directors will continue to be
reimbursed for expenses incurred to attend board meetings.  All directors will continue to receive
options to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock upon their initial election
to the Board and 10,000 more upon their annual re-elections.  The initial stock option grant vests over a
four-year period.  Since the annual amount
is viewed as compensation, it is 100% vested when awarded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE> 5
  <LEGEND>
  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF RESEARCH
  FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
  </LEGEND>

  <S>                             <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
  <PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
  <CASH>                                       8,142,569
  <SECURITIES>                                 1,246,083
  <RECEIVABLES>                                  222,549
  <ALLOWANCES>                                         0
  <INVENTORY>                                          0
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,695,137
  <PP&E>                                         319,321
  <DEPRECIATION>                                       0
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,037,063
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          529,327
  <BONDS>                                              0
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
  <PREFERRED>                                          0
  <COMMON>                                    11,523,900
  <OTHER-SE>                                           0
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,037,063
  <SALES>                                        128,096
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               514,399
  <CGS>                                                0
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,247,421
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,733,022)
  <INCOME-TAX>                                         0
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
  <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
  <CHANGES>                                            0
  <NET-INCOME>                               (3,733,022)
  <EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.34)
  <EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 ofchapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Bidz.com, Inc.(“Bidz.com”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Bidz.com on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation ofBidz.com.

 

 
| Date:  November 10,  2008 | By     | /s/ David  Zinberg       |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                     |   | David Zinberg            |
|                                     |   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|                                     |   |                     |
| Date:  November 10,  2008 | By     | /s/ Lawrence  Kong       |
|                                     |   | Lawrence Kong            |
|                                     |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Order entered March 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01160-CV

RICHARD GEHRKE AND PACIFIC COMPANIES, INC., Appellants

V.

MERRITT HAWKINS AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-09562

ORDER

Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Nowell

We REINSTATE this appeal.

This is an accelerated appeal from a temporary injunction. By order dated February 14, 

2019, we lifted the automatic stay imposed by section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code and abated this appeal to allow the parties to conduct discovery related to the 

alleged violations of the temporary injunction and to allow the trial court to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing on appellants’ motion to enforce the temporary injunction.

Before the Court is appellants’ March 15, 2019 agreed motion seeking a thirty-day 

extension for the trial court to conduct the enforcement hearing and grant in writing any 

appropriate relief. We GRANT the motion.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct the hearing and grant in writing any appropriate relief 

by April 25, 2019. 

We ORDER Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file, by April 30, 2019, a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing any signed order on appellants’ emergency motion to enforce 

or written notification that the trial court did not sign an order on the motion. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Emily 

Tobolowsky, Presiding Judge of the 298th Judicial District Court; Ms. Pitre; and all parties. 

We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this Court’s order. The appeal 

will be reinstated on April 30, 2019 or when the Court receives the requested supplemental clerk’s 

record, whichever occurs sooner. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of American Tire Distributors Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his best knowledge:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2009 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |        |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 18, 2009 |  | By:    |  | /s/    WILLIAM E.
BERRY                             
|                    |  | Name:  |  | William E. Berry                                    
|                    |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                    |  |       
|                    |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID L.
DYCKMAN                             
|                    |  | Name:  |  | David L. Dyckman                                    
|                    |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Edward A. Fleckenstein, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

February 28, 1967.

*Raymond P. Whearty*of counsel *(John G. Bonomi,*attorney), for petitioner.

*Edward A. Fleckenstein,*respondent in person. -

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department on March 6,1944. Respondent was charged with having been guilty of crime and misdemeanor, in violation of subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law and canons *18529 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, predicated upon his conviction, in 1957, in New Jersey, of three counts of “ Lewdness or indecency” in violation of section 2A:115-1 of the New Jersey Statutes. The Referee correctly found that the charge was sustained. He thoroughly explored all the evidence submitted concerning the crimes of which respondent had been found guilty, as well as respondent’s fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.

Respondent should be disbarred.

Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

. Respondent disbarred effective March 28, 1967.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.83 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

Pursuant to § 2.23, and subject to policy guidance and direction by the Assistant Secretary, the following delegation of authority is made by the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Assistant Secretary: Perform all duties and exercise all powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.