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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0 892 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 20 02

- 020994 The Honorable Cari A. Harrison , Judge ( Retired )

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney Office , Phoenix By Andrea Kever Counsel for Respondent

Thomas Stewart, Jr. , Phoenix Petitioner FILED 8-6-2019STATE v. STEWART Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Thomas Stewart, Jr., 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 eighth petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition fo r 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, ¶ 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 established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4332 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to improve telephone communication by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2024 

Mr. SULLIVAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to improve telephone communication by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Representing VA with 

5 Accuracy Act’’ or the ‘‘REP VA Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4332 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 

2 BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 63 of title 38, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 6321. Telephone communication 

7 ‘‘(a) CALLS ASSOCIATED WITH DEPARTMENT.—Not 

8 later than January 1, 2026, the Secretary shall ensure 

9 that any call made to a veteran by an employee or con10 tractor of the Department regarding services or benefits 

11 furnished by the Department— 

12 ‘‘(1) is made from a single, well-known tele13 phone number; and 

14 ‘‘(2) uses caller identification branding that in15 dicates to the veteran that the call is from or on be16 half of the Department. 

17 ‘‘(b) CALL CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE APPOINT18 MENTS AND REFERRALS.— 

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 1, 

20 2026, the Secretary shall ensure that the Veterans 

21 Health Administration has at least one call center in 

22 each of the time zones specified in paragraph (2) to 

23 address concerns regarding appointments and refer24 rals for health care under the laws administered by 

25 the Secretary. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4332 IS

1 ‘‘(2) TIME ZONES SPECIFIED.—The time zones 

2 specified in this paragraph are the following: 

3 ‘‘(A) Eastern time. 

4 ‘‘(B) Central time. 

5 ‘‘(C) Mountain time. 

6 ‘‘(D) Pacific time. 

7 ‘‘(E) Alaska time. 

8 ‘‘(F) Hawaii time. 

9 ‘‘(3) CLARIFICATION.—The Secretary is not re10 quired to ensure that the Veterans Health Adminis11 tration has a call center in any location generally 

12 within a time zone specified in paragraph (2) that 

13 does not follow daylight time.’’. 

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

15 at the beginning of chapter 63 of such title is amended 

16 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘6321. Telephone communication.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         124,546
<SECURITIES>                                   430,991
<RECEIVABLES>                                      600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               570,770
<PP&E>                                          10,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 654,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,145
<BONDS>                                             33
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       681,715
<OTHER-SE>                                    (46,434)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   654,666
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,478
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,420)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,420)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,420)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 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 Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: December 27, 2007By:
    
    /s/ Christopher J. ZydaChristopher J. ZydaSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement 
 Between Sprint Spectrum L.P. and
Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. 
 This Fourth Amendment (“Amendment”) is effective on the Acquisition Closing Date (defined below) and is made to that
certain Amended and Restated PCS Services Agreement between Sprint Spectrum L.P. (“Sprint PCS”) and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (formerly Virgin Mobile USA, LLC) (“VMU”) dated October 16, 2007, as amended, (the
“PCS Services Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment are defined in the PCS Services Agreement. 
  

	1.	Section 1.d. of the Third Amendment to Amended and Restated PCS Service Agreement, executed by Sprint and VMU on May 12, 2008, is deleted in its entirety and
removed from such Third Amendment. 

  

	2.	Except as specifically provided above, the PCS Services Agreement remains in effect in accordance with its terms. 

 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the dates indicated below. 
  

									
	SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.	 		 	 VIRGIN MOBILE USA, L.P. 
 (formerly
Virgin Mobile USA, LLC)

					
	By:	 	/s/ Douglas B. Lynn	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Peter Lurie
	Name: Douglas B. Lynn	 		 	Name: Peter Lurie
	Its: Vice President	 		 	Its: General Counsel
	Date: June 27, 2008	 		 	Date: June 27, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 1:01cr455 (LMB)

)

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI )

a/k/a “Shaqil,” )

a/k/a “Abu Khalid )

al Sahrawi,” )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Two business days after he was sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility for release, the defendant,

through his counsel, has filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea

(“Motion to Withdraw”)(Docket #1857), in which he alleges that

his guilty pleas to all charges in the six count second

superceding indictment are invalid because he lied as to the

factual basis for his pleas. Specifically, Moussaoui now claims

he “did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the

plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September

11.” He wants to withdraw his guilty pleas and go to trial to

prove his “innocence of the September 11 plot.” 

 Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw must be summarily denied on

the basis of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) which provides that “[a]fter

the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea

of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only

on direct appeal or collateral attack.” Because defendant was

sentenced on May 4, 2006, his motion is too late and must be
2

denied on this basis alone. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea be

and is DENIED.

To appeal this decision, defendant must file a written

notice of appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of this Order.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to

counsel of record.

Entered this 8 day of May, 2006. th

/s/

 

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498
**MEMORANDUM** SUBJECT: Air Quality

Modeling Materials used in estimating CAPs and air toxics for the final light - duty vehicle 2017 - 2025 greenhouse gas rule FROM: Margaret Zawacki

Assessment and Standards Division Office of T ransportation and Air Quality TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 10 - 0 799 - DRAFT - XXXX DATE: August 6 , 201 2 The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit data files which were used in the air quality modeling analy ses for the final light - duty vehicle 2017 - 2025 greenhouse gas rule. The air quality modeling analy ses are discussed in Section I I I. G of the preamble, Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analy sis (RIA) and in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document . In formation on the air quality modeling inventories is discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA. Following is a list of the information contain ed on the enclosed disc :

- deposition DBF files folder: gridded annual nitrogen and sulfur deposition difference data for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017 - 2025 control scenario

- toxics DBF files folder: gridded annual and seasonal (winter/summer) toxics difference data for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017 - 20 25 control scenario

- Ozone_DVs_LDGHG_2017 - 2025.xlsx : county- level 8 - hour max ozone Design Value projections for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017 - 2025 control scenario

- AnnualPM2.5_DVs_LDGHG_2017 - 2025.xlsx : county- level annual PM2.5 Design Value projectio ns for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017 - 2025 control scenario

- Daily PM2.5_DVs_L DGHG_2017_2025.xlsx : county- level 24 - hour PM2.5 Design Value projections for 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017 - 2025 control scenario OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION- Visibility _LDGHG_2017 - 2025.xlsx : Class 1 Area visibility projections for the 20% worst day s for 2005 baseline, 2030 baseline and LDGHG 2017 - 2025 control scenario

- CMAQv4.7.1_Release Notes.doc: REL EASE_NOTES for CMAQv4.7.1 from ORD, Shawn Roselle

- met.2005.12EUS1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Eastern U.S. 12 - km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.12WUS1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Mode ling Performance Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Western U.S. 12 - km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, February 2, 2009.

- met.2005.36US1.pdf: Baker K. and P. Dolwick. Meteorological Modeling Performance Evaluation for the Annual 2005 Continental U.S. 36 - km Domain Simulation, USEPA/OAQPS, February 2, 2009. Attachments
Case 2:04-cv-01190-DFL-PAN   Document 23    Filed 08/26/05   Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01190-DFL-PAN   Document 23    Filed 08/26/05   Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01190-DFL-PAN   Document 23    Filed 08/26/05   Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01190-DFL-PAN   Document 23    Filed 08/26/05   Page 4 of 4

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T05:02:13-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
----

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof) — Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ a.s.

(Case C-343/04) (1)

(Brussels Convention - Article 16(1)( a) - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to property - Action for cessation of a nuisance caused, or likely to be caused, to land by the activities of a nuclear power station situated on the territory of a neighbouring State - Not applicable)

(2006/C 165/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Oberösterreich

Defendant: ČEZ a.s.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 16(1)(a) of the Brussels Convention — Exclusive jurisdiction for ‘proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ — Action for cassation of a nuisance caused, or likely to be caused to agricultural land by a neighbouring nuclear plant located on the territory of a non-contracting State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that an action which, like that brought under Paragraph 364(2) of the Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Austrian Civil Code) in the main proceedings, seeks to prevent a nuisance affecting or likely to affect land belonging to the applicant, caused by ionising radiation emanating from a nuclear power station situated on the territory of a neighbouring State to that in which the land is situated, does not fall within the scope of that provision.

----

(1)OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1563

_____________________________

RENARD TERRELL GAULDIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

October 4, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Maria Ines Suber, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30360

Conference Calendar

__________________

LUIS ENRIQUE GONZALEZ,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-192

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Luis Enrique Gonzalez, a federal prison inmate,

filed a petition for mandamus, seeking to require the Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS) either to provide him with a

deportation hearing or to withdraw its detainer on him. 

Subsequently, he filed a motion requesting the district court to

appoint counsel to represent him at his INS deportation hearing. 

The magistrate judge denied the motion, and Gonzalez did not
No. 95-30360

-2-

appeal the ruling to the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

The magistrate judge also filed a report recommending denial

of Gonzalez's mandamus petition. The district court, in effect

adopting the report, dismissed the action. The court did not

advert to the magistrate judge's order denying the motion for

counsel. 

The only issue which Gonzalez states or discusses in his

appellate brief is that counsel should be appointed to represent

him before the INS, due to his indigency. Because Gonzalez

failed to appeal the magistrate judge's denial of his counsel

motion to the district court, this court lacks jurisdiction to

consider it. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379

(5th Cir. 1989).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```
Foster Care: Federal Policy on Title IV-E Share of Training Costs (Letter
Report, 11/03/93, GAO/HRD-94-7).

State and local governments need qualified child welfare workers to meet
a rising caseload of abused and neglected children needing foster care.
The total number of children in foster care rose from 273,500 in 1986 to
429,000 in 1991.  Federal funds for foster care and foster care training
are made available to the states under title IV-E of the Social Security
Act.  This report provides information on (1) the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) policy that foster care training costs be
allocated proportionately between the IV-E foster care program and other
programs, (2) adherence to this cost-sharing policy, and (3) the effect
of cost sharing on states' training programs.  GAO also provides data on
changes in funding for title IV-B, section 426 of the Social Security
Act, which provides child welfare grants to institutions of higher
learning.  GAO further discusses the number and qualifications of HHS'
Children's Bureau staff who run child welfare programs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-7
     TITLE:  Foster Care: Federal Policy on Title IV-E Share of Training 
             Costs
      DATE:  11/03/93
   SUBJECT:  Child care programs
             Foster children
             Educational programs
             Federal aid to states
             Human resources training
             Federal/state relations
             State-administered programs
             Education or training costs
             Cost sharing (finance)
             Aid to families with dependent children
IDENTIFIER:  AFDC
             Title IV-E Foster Care Program
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of
American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the Company), that the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and the results of
operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.

|                       |  |     |  |                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | By: |  | /s/ Alan Goldstein                                                                 
|                       |  |     |  |                                                                                    
|                       |  |     |  | Alan Goldstein
Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
|                      
|                      
|                      
|                      
|Date: November 8, 2002 |  |     |  |                                                                                    

19