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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

DONNIE ROMONE TWIGGS , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 21

- 0 315 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in M ohave County

No. S8015CR201801789 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe , Jr., Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

M ohave County Attorney ’ s Office , Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent
Donnie Romone Twiggs, Tucson Petitioner FILED 1-18-2022STATE v. TWIGGS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann , Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Donnie Romone Twiggs seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. 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

- co nviction 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 e stablished an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### § 550.112 Administrative supervision.

The Cooperator is responsible for employer/employee relations such as personnel, performance, and time management issues. The Cooperator is solely responsible for the administrative supervision of its employees, even when its employees are working in Agency facilities.
#### In the Matter of Stephen Solomon, Petitioner, v Gordon M. Ambach, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education, which suspended petitioner’s license to practice podiatry for a period of three months and imposed a fine of $1,000. Petitioner’s contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit (see *Matter of Foreman v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y.,*75 AD2d 953, mot for lv to app den 51 NY2d 704). We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be unpersuasive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DOYLE L. HEARD,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv539–WS/MJF

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 9) docketed August 8, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that this case

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections

(ECF No. 10) to the report and recommendation.

Having considered the record in light of Plaintiff’s objections, the

undersigned concludes that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is

due to be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is ADOPTED and

incorporated into this order by reference.

Case 4:20-cv-00539-WS-MJF Document 11 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1).

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims are dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

4. The clerk shall close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of August , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00539-WS-MJF Document 11 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 33.5**

** **

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH**

**§1122(d)(2)(vi) and §1122(d)(4)(xi)**

**of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

** **

 

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc., collectivelythe “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to allmortgage loan-tracking transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all mortgage loan-tracking transactions for which the Asserting Party served as a Vendor on behalf of Servicers for such asset-backed securities transactionsthat were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”). The scope of the Asserting Party assertions excludes §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, which relates to servicing activities that are performed by the Asserting Party with respect to the Platform, but are not reported on herein.

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with§1122(d)(2)(vi) and §1122(d)(4)(xi) ("theApplicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. The AssertingParty used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

The Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the ApplicableServicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period ending December 31, 2006 as set forth in this assertion.

 

     American Security Insurance Company

     Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

     Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.

 

/s/ John Frobose

By: John FroboseSenior Vice President

 

 

Date: February 23, 2007 
|   |
|--------|
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR-MD Document 145 Filed 09/27/05 Page 7 of 7
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 3:04cr1/LAC

3:06cv245/LAC/MD

LAWANDA CAROL NALL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court upon defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 145). Rule 4(b) of the Rules

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides in part that “[i]f it plainly appears from the

face of the motion and any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the

movant is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its

summary dismissal and cause the movant to be notified.” Defendant indicates on the §

2255 form that after her direct appeal was decided on September 29, 2005, she filed a

petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on December 23, 2005 which

is still pending. As of the date of this recommendation, the court has verified that the

petition for certiorari is still pending. The district court lacks jurisdiction to consider and rule

on a § 2255 motion during the pendency of the direct appeal. United States v. Dunham,

240 F.3d 1328, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975,

976 n.20 (11th Cir. 1990); Welsh v. United States, 404 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1968) (“[a] motion

to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will not be entertained during the pendency of

a direct appeal, inasmuch as the disposition of the appeal may render the motion moot.”)

Case 3:04-cr-00001-LC-MD Document 146 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:04cr1/LAC; 3:06cv245/LAC/MD

Therefore, because the resolution of the petition for certiorari could render the instant

petition moot, it is premature, and should be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 

The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(doc. 145) be denied without prejudice due to the pendency of defendant’s petition for

certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of June, 2006.

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within ten days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy

of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to object may limit the

scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v.

Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case 3:04-cr-00001-LC-MD Document 146 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2
52.247-36 F.a.s. Vessel, Port of Shipment.

As prescribed in 47.303-8(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the

delivery term is f.a.s. vessel, port of shipment:

F.a.s. Vessel, Port of Shipment (Apr 1984)

(a) The term "f.a.s. vessel, port of shipment," as used in this clause, means free of expense to the

Government delivered alongside the ocean vessel and within reach of its loading tackle at the

specified port of shipment.

(b) The Contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance

with carrier requirements to protect the goods and to ensure assessment of the lowest applicable

transportation charge;

(2)

(i) Deliver the shipment in good order and condition alongside the ocean vessel and within reach of

its loading tackle, at the point of delivery and on the date or within the period specified in the

contract; and

(ii) Pay and bear all applicable charges, including transportation costs, wharfage, handling, and

heavy lift charges, if necessary, up to this point;

(3) Provide a clean dock or ship’s receipt;

(4) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery of the

shipment to the point specified in the contract; and

(5) At the Government’s request and expense, assist obtaining the documents required for-

(i) Exportation; or

(ii) Importation at destination.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, December 9, 2010 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 9, 2010 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: December 1, 2010.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-30530 Filed 12-1-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
What's New

Additional PM-2.5 (2012

standard) area designations

and a correction were

published

on April 7, 2015,

effective April 15, 2015.

(see 80 FR 18535 for details)

The Pechanga Band of Luiseno

Mission Indians of the

Pechanga Reservation was

made a separate 8-hour Ozone

(1997 standard) area,

published

on April 3, 2015,

effective April 3, 2015.

The area was redesignated to

attainment in the same notice.

(see 80 FR 18120 for details)

Implementation of the 2008

Ozone NAAQS: State

Implementation Plan

Requirements Final Rule,

including revocation of the

1997 Ozone NAAQS, was

published

on March 6, 2015,

effective April 6, 2015.

(see 80 FR 12264 for details)

Nonattainment area

designations for the PM-2.5

(2012 Standard) were

published

on January 15, 2015,

effective April 15, 2015.

(see 80 FR 2206 for details)

The State Implementation Plan

Status Website is now

available.

You are here: EPA Home Green Book The Green Book Nonattainment Areas

The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria

Pollutants

As of January 30, 2015

View Federal Register Notices published or effective

after this Green Book was posted

Questions concerning the status of nonattainment areas, their

classification and EPA policy should be directed to the appropriate

Regional Office. EPA Headquarters should be contacted only when the

Regional Office is unable to answer a question.

Areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the

national ambient air quality standards may be designated

"nonattainment." To view a list of areas designated nonattainment,

select one of the pollutants/standards below:

Ozone Particulate Matter (PM)

8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard) PM-2.5 (2006 Standard)

8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard) PM-2.5 (1997 Standard)

1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard) PM-10 (1987 Standard)

Sulfur Dioxide Lead

Sulfur Dioxide (2010

Standard) Lead (2008 Standard)

Sulfur Dioxide (1971

Standard) Lead (1978 Standard)

Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide

Carbon Monoxide (1971

Standard)

Nitrogen Dioxide (1971

Standard)

National Multi-Pollutant

National Area and County-Level Multi-Pollutant Information

Green Book Website Disclaimer

Green Book

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html

Last updated on 6/1/2015

The Green Book Nonattainment Areas | Green Book | US EPA http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html

1 of 1 6/17/2015 2:53 PM
#### § 510.3 Requests for records.

Requests for records of ARS under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) shall be made in accordance with Subsection 1.5 of this title and submitted to the FOIA Coordinator, Information Staff, ARS, REE, USDA, Mail Stop 5128, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705-5128; Telephone (301) 504-1640 or (301) 504-1655; TTY-VOICE (301) 504-1743; Facsimile (301) 504-1648; e-mail *vherberger@ars.usda.gov* or *shutchison@ars.usda.gov.* The FOIA Coordinator is delegated authority to make determinations regarding such requests in accordance with Subsection 1.3(c) of this title.
47.305-1 Solicitation requirements.       When the acquisition of supplies is on f.o.b. origin or f.o.b. destination delivery terms, the contracting officer shall include in solicitations a requirement that the offeror furnish the Government as much of the following data as is applicable to the particular acquisition:                                       (a) 						            Modes of transportation and, if rail transportation is used, names of rail carriers serving the offeror’s facility.                                          (b) 						            The number of railroad cars, motor trucks, or other conveyances that can be loaded per day.                                          (c) 						            Type of packaging; *e.g.,* box, carton, crate, drum, bundle, skids, and when applicable, package number from the governing freight classification.                                          (d) 						            Number of units packed in one container.                                          (e) 						            Guaranteed maximum shipping weight; cubic measurement; and length, width, and height of each container.                                          (f) 						            Minimum size of each shipment.                                          (g) 						            Number of containers or units that can be loaded in a car, truck, or other conveyance of the size normally used (specify type and size) for the commodity.                                          (h) 						            Description of material in terms of the governing freight classification or tariff (or Government rate tender) under which lowest freight rates are applicable.                                          (i) 						            Benefits available to the Government under transit arrangements made by the offeror.                                          (j) 						            Other requirements as stated under specific section headings.    **Parent topic:** 47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BUTCHIE LONG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 85 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of September , 2018

, the Motion Requesting to Exceed

Word Limit is DENIED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a compliant Petition for Allowance

of Appeal within 30 days.
#### WUZHEN XUE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72395.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 31, 2007.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rodney A. Morris, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wuzhen Xue, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of *529Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence, *Ge v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. The IJ’s finding that Xue’s testimony was non-responsive and vague is not supported by substantial evidence. *See He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th*Cir.2003); *see also Garrovillas v. INS,*156 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.1998). Likewise, substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based upon an inconsistency regarding the cause of Xue’s third pregnancy. *See He,*328 F.3d at 598.

Inconsistencies as to how Xue’s sister obtained medical records and how governmental authorities discovered the birth of Xue’s daughter were minor and did not go to the heart of Xue’s claim. *See Bandari v. INS,*227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000).

The IJ’s adverse credibility findings based upon Xue’s lack of fear of returning to China, her practice of Falun *Gong in the*United States, and her account of how she distributed Falun Gong materials are not supported by substantial evidence because the IJ relied upon impermissible speculation, *see Ge,*367 F.3d at 1125, and because Xue’s testimony and asylum application were not inconsistent, *see Shah v. INS,*220 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir.2000).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand the case to the BIA for farther proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT GENE WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:21cv19-TKW-MJF

SHERIFF TOMMY FORD 

and RICK ANGLIN, 

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DAUBERT MOTION

This case is before the Court based on Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude 

the expert testimony of Ron McAndrew (Doc. 47). Plaintiff filed a response stating 

that “he consents to the [m]otion to [s]trike” (Doc. 55). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Ron McAndrew’s expert testimony, 

opinions, and report are excluded from this case.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2022.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 56 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 1