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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SOPHANN CHAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0435 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-107625-001

The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Sophann Chan, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 4-1-2021
STATE v. CHAN

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Sophann Chan 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 (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, 538, ¶ 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. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
#### Sara Simonson-Carlson, Respondent-Appellant, v Grant B. Carlson, Appellant-Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 206]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The judgment of divorce must be modified by vacating the fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs. The oral stipulation of the parties is ambiguous with respect to the issues of transportation for visitation and the location of the child’s school, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to resolve those issues. We note that the “preferred remedy” to correct an inaccuracy in a judgment of divorce is by motion to the trial court for resettlement or vacatur rather than by appeal *(Pizzuto v Pizzuto,*162 AD2d 443, 444). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Finally, contrary to the contention of plaintiff, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her application for attorneys’ fees *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
#### § 71.7 Bearings, radials, and mileages.

All bearings and radials in this part are true and are applied from point of origin and all mileages in this part are stated as nautical miles.
|   | EXHIBIT      13.2 |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | In      connection with this annual report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the      “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the      “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  that: |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (3) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | This      certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,      and not for any other purpose. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 17, 2009     |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
| /s/      Leonard J. Hoskinson |
| Leonard      J. Hoskinson     |
|                          |
|                          |
| Chief      Financial Officer  |
§ 38.19 Change criteria. ( a ) For an airplane that has been shown to comply with § 38.17, any subsequent version of that airplane must demonstrate compliance with § 38.17 if the subsequent version incorporates a modification that either increases: ( 1 ) The maximum takeoff mass; or
( 2 ) The fuel efficiency metric value by a percentage that is more than the following calculated thresholds. ( i ) For airplanes with a MTOM greater than or equal to 5,700 kg, the threshold decreases linearly from 1.35 percent for an airplane with a MTOM of 5,700 kg to 0.75 percent for an airplane with a MTOM of 60,000 kg.
( ii ) For airplanes with a MTOM greater than or equal to 60,000 kg, the threshold decreases linearly from 0.75 percent for an airplane with a MTOM of 60,000 kg to 0.70 percent for airplanes with a MTOM of 600,000 kg.
( iii ) For airplanes with a MTOM greater than or equal to 600,000 kg, the threshold is 0.70 percent.
( b ) For an airplane that has been shown to comply with § 38.17, and for any subsequent version of that airplane that incorporates modifications that do not increase the MTOM or the fuel efficiency metric value in excess of the levels shown in paragraph (a) of this section, the fuel efficiency metric value of the modified airplane may be reported to be the same as the value prior to modification.
( c ) For an airplane that meets the criteria of § 38.1(a)(4) or (5), on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028, the airplane must demonstrate compliance with § 38.17 if it incorporates any modification that increases the fuel efficiency metric value of the airplane prior to modification by more than 1.5 percent.
# Peabody Energy

Request for amendments to FAA 333 UAS exemption

Exemption No. 14013

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 4259

Contact:

Joel Davis

Peabody Energy

5995 North McDonnell Blvd.

St. Louis, MO 63134

- 2058

314.683.8292Date: January 22, 2016

Exemption No. 14013

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 4259

To whom it may concern:

Peabody Energy is requesting an amendment to the existing 333 exemption as listed and

described below. The purpose for the amendment is to be able to offer the services as listed in the

existing 333 exemption. The amendment will better serve to increase the functionality and

usefulness of additional UASs and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working

environments in the industries in which they are deployed.

1. Additional Aircraft

Peabody Energy would like to add an additional UAS to the existing exemption No.14013 . The new

aircraft is the DJI Inspire 1.

Manufacturer: DJI

The addition of the DJI UAS listed above would not affect the e xisting 333, where public interest and

safety were the basis for granting the original exemption. The DJI Inspire 1

meet s all the existing requirements noted by the FAA.

The user manual will be emailed directly to 333exemptions@faa.gov.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00016

- CR

E DGAR F LORES

- G ARNICA

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appe al from

County Criminal Court No. 5

of Denton County ( CR

- 2018

- 06700

- E )

May 13, 2021

Opinion by Justice Wallach

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s ju dgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Meeting to Review the Mitre Report

AGENCY: Special Oversight Board for Department of Defense 
Investigations of Gulf War Chemical and Biological Incidents, 
Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Board will conduct a two-day closed meeting to review the 
Mitre Report, a classified report dealing with how and when the 
intelligence community determined the type, number and location of 
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction during operations Desert Shield and 
Desert Storm. OSAGWI will also present a short classified briefing on 
the revised Khamisiyah plume.

DATES: May 22-23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: 1401 Wilson Boulevard, suite 401, Arlington, VA 22209 (Day 
1); Old Executive Office Building, 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20504 (Day 2).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. David Edman, Special 
Oversight Board, 1401 Wilson Blvd, Suite 401, Arlington, VA 22209, 
phone (703) 696-9468, fax (703) 696-4062, or via Email at 
[email protected]. Copies of the draft meeting agenda can be 
obtained by contacting Ms. Sandra Simpson at (703) 696-9464 or at the 
above fax number of above email.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Classified information will be discussed and 
reviewed throughout the two-day meeting. Therefore, the meeting is not 
open to the public. No government personnel other than the two briefing 
teams will be permitted to attend the meeting.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 00-12065 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
```
Meeting Record Regarding: The Contaminant Candidate List 4 (CCL 4)

Date: July 25, 2013

Location: American Water Works Association Offices; Washington, DC

Participants: Meredith Russell (EPA), Lisa Christ (EPA), Alan Roberson (AWWA), Adam Carpenter 

(AWWA), Steve Via (AWWA), Jeanne Eckhart (AWWA Intern), Austa Parker (AWWA Intern), Clay Cope 

(AWWA Intern), Andy Eaton (Eurofin Eaton Analytical), Rick Sakaji (East Bay MUD), Gary Lynch (Park 

Water), Craig Adams (Utah State University), Cynthia Garcia (City of Peoria, AZ), Theresa Slifko 

(Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Keith Cartnick (United Water), Ruth Marfil-Vega 

(American Water), Djanette Khiari (Water Research Foundation), Dave Cornwell (EE&T, Inc.), Jeff Rosen 

(Clancy Environmental), Michelle Frey (PureSense), Chuck Hertz (Aqua America), Chad Seidel (Jacobs 

Engineering), Joe Cotruvo (Cotruvo and Associates)

EPA met with representatives from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) to discuss the CCL 4 

nominated contaminants. EPA gave a brief summary of the request for nominations from the public in 

the Federal Register on May 8, 2012, and of the contaminant nominations received from the public. EPA 

told the AWWA members that it had received nominations for 59 unique contaminants (54 chemicals 

and 5 microbial contaminants or groups of contaminants) to be considered for inclusion in the CCL 4. 

Eight of those 59 contaminants were nominated by more than one nominator. Nominations were 

received from 10 different organizations or individuals. EPA stated that all of the original nomination 

submissions could be found in the CCL 4 docket at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-

0217). EPA also said that we are evaluating the nominated contaminants using the same process that 

was used in CCL 3, and that we are working hard to release a Draft CCL 4 for public comment and to 

meet our statutory deadline for the Final CCL 4 of October, 2014. 

AWWA members asked how many of the nominated chemicals were previously considered in CCL 3, and 

EPA responded that 44 of the nominated chemicals were considered in the CCL 3 Universe and that 

most of the nominated chemicals not in the CCL 3 Universe were previously evaluated by EPA in 

response to CCL 3 public comments. EPA also clarified that all of the nominated contaminants that have 

new data available since the development of the CCL 3 are being evaluated for potential inclusion in the 

CCL 4. AWWA members also asked EPA to clarify how contaminants were considered in the CCL 3 

process, and EPA gave a brief explanation of the CCL 3 process, which included narrowing of a broad 

Universe of potential drinking water contaminants to a Preliminary CCL (PCCL) using screening criteria 

based on the contaminant’s potential to occur in public water systems, and the potential for public 

health concern, and then a more detailed evaluation of the PCCL contaminants using a scoring and 

classification system to select contaminants from the PCCL for the CCL. Members also asked if the Draft 

CCL 4 would undergo SAB review, and EPA responded that we will consult with the SAB on the Draft list.
#### Seymour’s Executors *vs.*Strong.

ALBANY,

Feb. 1838.

On a motion for a commission to examine witnesses, the party applying must allege in his affidavit that he has fully and fairly stated his case to counsel, and disclosed to him what he expected to prove by his witnesses.

Motion for a commission to examine witnesses. It was objected that the defendant had not alleged that he had fully and fairly stated his case to counsel, and disclosed to him the facts which he expected to prove by his witnesses. *99This it was contended was as necessary on this motion as on a motion to change venue.

*H. II. Martin,*for defendant,

*A. Taber,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

The cases are not distinguishable. The motion must be denied.
[No. 49490-2-I.

Division One.

November 18, 2002.]

#### Norm John Trapp, *Appellant,*v. Joseph J. Jackels, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 00-2-06412-6, Larry E. McKeeman, J., entered September 6, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, J., concurred in by Cox, A.C.J., and Baker, J.
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0582 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0582

**95/582/EC: Council Decision of 20 December 1995 on the conclusion of the Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, concerning certain agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 327 , 30/12/1995 P. 0017 - 0017 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 20 December 1995 on the conclusion of the Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, concerning certain agricultural products (95/582/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, concerning certain agricultural products should be approved to take account of the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, concerning certain agricultural products are hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The texts of the Agreements are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

Detailed rules for the application of this Decision shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1) or the corresponding provisions of other regulations on the common organization of the markets.

Article 3

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreements referred to in Article 1 in order to bind the Community (2).

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995.

For the Council

The President

J. M. EGUIAGARAY

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) The dates of entry into force of the Agreements will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.
### i mAP R! i P > 3 2 SERVED : APRIL'11 , 201 2



### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

## PATHFINDE RAVIATION , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . [T O B E ASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penall y Case ) DMSFAA-20I2-002 8 

## ORDE RDENYIN G MOTIO N AN D ACCEPTIN G ANSWE R Complainan t

Federal Aviatio n Adminislratio n ("Complainant" ) o n March 30 , 2012 , file daMotio n to DeemAllegation s Admitte d("Motion") . I t cite dthe-failure of Responden t

Pathfinder

Aviation , Inc . ("Respondent" ) to fil e atimel y Answe r t o it s Complaint . Respondent , unde r

dat e of Apri l 3 , 2012 , filedaletter whic h i n par t purport s t o b e it s Answer . Respondent , whic h i s pr o se , als o assert s tha t i t faile dto file atimel y answer becaus e i t wa s unawar e o f

it s prope r

responsibilitie s agains t

th e backgroun do f

confusin g regulations . For goo dcaus e shown , I hereb y accep t Respondent' s filin g a s it s Answe r t o Complainant' s Complaint . I note als o tha t n o prejudic e t o Complainan t resultin g fro

mRespondent' s untimel y Answe r ha s bee n demonstrated . Additionally , Complaint' s Motio n t o Dee mAlle'ialion s Admitte di s denied. ' 'fc ' S O ORDERED .

Riciiar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' Becaus e ahearing is "funciamen(al " t o ih e concep t o f du e process , th

e Administrato

r ha s he M tha i "Iwlhereve r possible , case s shoul

db e dispose do f o n ih e merit s afte r ahearing , rathe

r iha n summaril

y becaus e o f aprocedura

l defect. " Dtn'l

dLloy dComwal L FA A Orde r No . 92-47 (Jul

y 22 , 1992) . p . 7 .FDMSNo . FAA-2012-002 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu v Wrigh t

Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Michae l W . Fell , Presiden t Pathfinde r

Aviation , Inc . P.O . Bo x 37 5 Homer , A K

9960 3 TEL : 907-299-280 0 FAX : 907-299-280 1 Glen n H . Brown , Complainat U ' s Counse l Senio r Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Alaska n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 W . 7*

^ Avenu e #1 4 Anchorage , A K

99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-527 1 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administraliv e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , iVI-2

0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . (EIl-310 ) Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Staf

f Assistant/Paralega l FAX : 202-366-753 6

^ Sen'ic c wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r sei^'ice i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier , use th

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 . Washington , D C 20591 . Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC^30 .
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Lawrence D. BainLawrence D. BainChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Barry A. SullivanBarry A. SullivanChief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 09, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 09, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0041. KENDAL MEGAN DOMENICONE v. MICHAEL SCOTT DOMENICONE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2014CV244167