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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

v.

JUAN CARLOS ROSALES, Appellant

.
No . 1 CA-CR 15-0019

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2014-127064-001 The Ho norable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Myles A. Braccio Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office
, Phoenix By Charles R. Krull Counsel for AppellantSTATE v. ROSALES Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

D O W N I E , Judge:

¶1 Juan Carlos Rosales appeals his conviction for misconduct involving weapons. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
¶2 Rosales was placed on probation in 2011 for a felony offense and was prohibited from possessing a firearm. In May 2014, his probation officer received information that Rosales had a gun at his residence. A search of the home revealed a gun in an air duct, and subsequent testing established that Rosales’ DNA was on the gun.
¶3 The State charged Rosales with one count of misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13 -3102(A)(4). A jury found Rosales guilty of the charged offense, and Rosales timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION
¶4 Rosales makes a single argument on appeal: that the State failed to prove his right to possess a firearm had not been restored

— something Rosales claims is an “essential element” of the charged offense. As the State correctly notes, however, although it bears the burden of proving a defendant was a prohibited possessor, the defendant has the burden of proving that his right to possess a firearm has been restored. State v. Kelly , 210 Ariz. 460, 463, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (“B ecause the restoration provision of § 13-3101(A)(6)(b) functions as an exception, it is not an element of the offense that the state must prove.”).

1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.” State v. Nihiser , 191 Ariz. 199, 201 (App. 1997).STATE v. ROSALES Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 Th e State proved Rosales’ prohibited possessor status

. It admitted a certified record of his prior felony conviction, which reflected Rosales was sentenced and placed on probation on July 27, 2011

. Rosales’ probation officer testified he remained on probation as of the date of the charged offense and was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Rosales presented no evidence that his right to possess a firearm had been restored , and he made no such argument at trial.

CON CLUSION
¶6 We affirm Rosales’ conviction and sentence.
#### Thomas Coxhead, *Appellant, v.*The Brooklyn, Bath and Coney Island Railroad Company.

Exceptions overruled and order dismissing complaint affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard,. P. J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
•''ilv:ENTOF 

: OFERATiOr 

• :: ^.G - ^ P j : 31 

Delawar e Aviation Museum Foundation 

21513 Rudder Lane, Sussex County Airport 

(Hangar: 21781 Aviation Avenue) 

Georgetown, Delaware 19947 

Phone: 302-854-0244 

Cell: 410-991-2356 

July 21, 2011 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn; Rules Docket, AGC-10 

OfiSce of Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Avenue 

Washington, DC 20591 

cc: U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor. 

RoomW12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sirs; 

Re: Delaware Aviation Museum Foundation, petitioner for extension of Exen^on 8702B. 

Docket NuinberFAA-2005-20788 

The Delaware Aviation Museum foundation requests extension of Exemption S702B scheduled to 

exjnre November 30,2011 

In consideration of the public interest and safety in which the original petition was granted, the 

E>daware Aviation Museum Foundation submits the following information to support this request. 

• The conditions and terms that were detailed in the original petition remain unchanged. 

• The exemption has been in effect since March 2006 without incident, accident, or 

injury, 

• The Delaware Aviation Museum Foundation has established and adhered to all of the 

limitations, maintenance and training requirements detailed in Exemption 8702B. 

If I can be of further assistance to you in your review of this request, please do not hesitate to 

contact me at (410) 991-2356, or larrvdkellev@aol.com. 

Sincerely' 

Larry D.KelleyRPh 

Director
EXHIBIT
23.1
  
   
   
   CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-20964, No. 33-24364, No. 33-41604, No. 33-52473, No. 33-54402, No. 33-54404,
No. 333-94945, No. 333-37823 and No. 333-37831 on Forms S-8, in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-25581 on Form S-8 and in
Registration Statements No. 333-104559, No. 333-121506, No. 333-122342, No.
333-122448, No. 333-124298, No. 333-127969, No. 333-134908, No. 333-138336, No.
333-142418 and No. 333-155993 on Forms S-3 of our reports dated March 1, 2010,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules of Weingarten Realty Investors, (the “Company”) (which report on the
consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s change in the method of
accounting for noncontrolling interests and for convertible and exchangeable
senior debentures) and the effectiveness of Weingarten Realty Investors'
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Weingarten Realty Investors for the year ended December 31,
2009.
   
   
  /s/Deloitte
& Touche LLP
 
 
 
 Houston,
Texas
 March 1,
2010
2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 06/22/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 114
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            98,817
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,346
<MORTGAGE>                                          95
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 108,439
<CASH>                                           5,395
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          21,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,085
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 98,680
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  7,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,130
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,085
<PREMIUMS>                                      29,005
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,078
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  17
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   4,896
<BENEFITS>                                      23,682
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        580
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             6,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (428)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,481)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
N. Y. COMMOM PLEAS.

#### Michael Sullivan agt. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York.

*Special*Term, October, 1874.

*Janitor of a district court not an officer.*

*A. janitor*of a district civil court in the city of New York is not an officer, but an employe.

■Consequently where such janitor received his appointment from the common council and his compensation was fixed by them, the board of estimate and apportionment cannot change it by a resolution under the charter of 1873.

The plaintiff was appointed janitor of the sixth district civil court of the city of Mew York, in 1870, and his compensation fixed by the common council.

In December, 1873, the board of estimate and apportionment passed the following resolution:

“ Besolved, That under the authority conferred upon the board by section 97 of chapter 335 of the Laws of 1873, this board do now fix the salaries of the janitors of district courts at the sum of $1,200, each, per annum, to take effect January 1st, 1874.”

Payment at that rate was offered by the defendants and received by the plaintiff, under protest, and action was brought to recover the balance. The defendants answered, setting up the resolution of the board, and plaintiff demurred to the answer as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

*Elliott Sandford,*attorney for plaintiffs.

*239Section 97 of the charter relates to city officers, such as aldermen. The plaintiff is not an officer, he is an employe (53 *N. Y.,*652). That decision is conclusive in this action (4 *N. Y.,*71).

*E. Delafield*Smith, for defendants.

Robinson, *J.*

— In the case of *Costello*agt. *The Mayor, &c., of The City of New York,** I have recently held that a clerk employed by the common council is not an officer. A person who does not discharge independent duties, but acts by direction of others, and has no power to bind by his own acts, is not an officer *(see cases cited in Costello case*; *The King*agt. *Dr. Burnell, Carthew,*478; 1 *Dillon’s Municipal Corporations,*146; 2 *Harrington, 294; 3 Yeates,*300).

The demurrer is sustained, with leave to defendants to amend on payment of costs.

*

 Which has been recently affirmed by the general term.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending May 18, 2013

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------ | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|HCBF HOLDING COMPANY, INC.     | * 4c8         | HCBF Holding Company, Inc., Palm City, Florida, to acquire BSA Financial Services, Inc., and its subsidiary, Bank of St. Augustine, both of St. Augustine, Florida, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y and section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:06/17/2013Federal Register:06/13/2013      
|Newspaper:                     | 06/17/2013   
|Federal Register:              | 06/13/2013   
|PROGRESS FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A1         | Progress Financial Corporation, notice to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Progress Bank and Trust, both of Huntsville, Alabama.                                                                                                                                                  | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 1103.34 Intermediaries. ( a ) The services of a practitioner should not be controlled or exploited by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and practitioner. The responsibility and qualifications of the practitioner are individual. The practitioner shall avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties in the interest of such intermediaries. The practitioner's relationship and responsibility to the client should be direct.
( b ) The practitioner may accept employment from any organization (such as an association, club or trade organization) authorized by law to be a party to proceedings before the Board, to render services in such proceedings in any matter in which the organization, as an entity, is interested. This employment should only include the rendering of such services to the members of the organization in respect to the individual affairs as are consistent with the free and faithful performance of his duties to the Board.
( c ) Nothing in this canon shall be construed as conflicting with § 1103.20(d).
§ 1550.7 Operations in aircraft of 12,500 pounds or more. ( a ) *Applicability of this section.* This section applies to each aircraft operation conducted in an aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more except for those operations specified in § 1550.5 and those operations conducted under a security program under part 1544 or 1546 of this chapter.
( b ) *Procedures.* Any person conducting an operation identified in paragraph (a) of this section must conduct a search of the aircraft before departure and screen passengers, crewmembers, and other persons and their accessible property (carry-on items) before boarding in accordance with security procedures approved by TSA.
( c ) *Compliance date.* Persons identified in paragraph (a) of this section must implement security procedures when notified by TSA. TSA will notify operators by NOTAM, letter, or other communication when they must implement security procedures.
( d ) *Waivers.* TSA may permit a person conducting an operation identified in this section to deviate from the provisions of this section if TSA finds that the operation can be conducted safely under the terms of the waiver.
#### § 76.50-5 [Reserved]
Exhibit 23. 1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

Safe Technologies International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Numbers
333-63029 (Safe Technologies International, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan) and
333-92267 (Safe Technologies International, Inc. - Year 2000 Stock Award Plan)
of Safe Technologies International, Inc. on Form S-8 Registration Statements of
our report dated March 22, 2000 appearing in and incorporated by reference in
this Amendment to report on Form 10-KSB of Safe Technologies International, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

 /s/ Sewell & Company, P.A.

Hollywood, Florida
May 11, 2000
98-2178.

#### Burnes v. Webb.

Athens App. No. 97CA45. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due November 23, 1998, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending July 25, 2009

|Filer                                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                              
|--------------------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY | * Branch       | Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Buffalo, New York, request to establish a branch office located at 1351 Blair Drive, Odenton, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.                    | Newspaper:08/01/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | 08/01/2009    
|Federal Register:                       | Not applicable
|MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY | * Branch       | Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Buffalo, New York, request to establish a branch office located at 300 Park Point Drive, Suite 105, Town of Henrietta, Monroe County, New York. | Newspaper:08/06/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | 08/06/2009    
|Federal Register:                       | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                     | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------------------ | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|BANCO POPULAR DE PR, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO | 940311 | 09/15/2008 | 05/07/2009     | O         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending May 18, 2013

|Filer              | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                               | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------ | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|ARVEST BANK        | * Branch       | Arvest Bank, Fayetteville, Arkansas, to establish a branch facility to be located at 2389 N. College Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.          | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:         | Not available 
|Federal Register:  | Not applicable
|SIGMA HOLDINGS INC | * 3A1          | Sigma Holdings, Inc., Little Rock, Arkansas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of The Bank of Rison, Rison, Arkansas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available 
|Newspaper:         | Not available 
|Federal Register:  | Not available 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 197.314 First aid and treatment equipment. ( a ) Each dive location must have— ( 1 ) A medical kit approved by a physician that consists of— ( i ) Basic first aid supplies; and
( ii ) Any additional supplies necessary to treat minor trauma and illnesses resulting from hyperbaric exposure;
( 2 ) A copy of an American Red Cross Standard First Aid handbook;
( 3 ) A bag-type manual resuscitator with transparent mask and tubing; and
( 4 ) A capability to remove an injured diver from the water.
( b ) Each diving installation must have a two-way communications system to obtain emergency assistance except when the vessel or facility ship-to-shore, two-way communications system is readily available.
( c ) Each dive location supporting mixed-gas dives, dives deeper than 130 fsw, or dives outside the no-decompression limits must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and have— ( 1 ) A decompression chamber;
( 2 ) Decompression and treatment tables;
( 3 ) A supply of breathing gases sufficient to treat for decompression sickness;
( 4 ) The medical kit required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section that is— ( i ) Capable of being carried into the decompression chamber; and
( ii ) Suitable for use under hyperbaric conditions; and
( 5 ) A capability to assist an injured diver into the decompression chamber.