alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

BRIAN ODELL HOPSON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0369 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2009-120677-001

The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Petitioner

Brian Odell Hopson, Tucson

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Kent E. 

Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. HOPSON

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Brian Odell Hopson petitions this court for review 

of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have

considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review 

and deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Hopson of four counts of aggravated assault 

and the trial court sentenced him to four concurrent terms of twenty years’

imprisonment. Hopson voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal and now

seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for postconviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 Hopson’s petition for post-conviction relief asserted that the 

Arizona Department of Corrections interfered with his efforts to file a posttrial motion pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24. The 

superior court properly denied relief because this is not a cognizable claim 

under Rule 32.1.

¶4 While Hopson’s petition for review arguably presents 

additional issues, Hopson did not raise those issues in his petition for postconviction relief. A petition for review may not present issues that were 

not first presented to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 

P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 

1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 

1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶5 We grant review and deny relief.
### **EXHIBIT23**

### **CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

(1)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-56623) pertaining to the Cintas Corporation Partners’Plan,

(2)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-23228) pertaining to the Incentive Stock OptionPlan,

(3)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-71124) pertaining to the 1990 Directors’ Plan and1992 Stock Option Plan,

(4)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-75015) pertaining to the Unitog Company 1992 and1997 Stock Option Plans,

(5)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-44654) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan,

(6)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-4 No. 333-78085),

(7)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-1102221) pertaining to the 2003 Director’s StockOption Plan, and

(8)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-131375) pertaining to the 2005 Equity CompensationPlan

 

of our reportdated July 21, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofCintas Corporation, our report dated July 21, 2006, with respect to CintasCorporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Cintas Corporation, and our report on the financial statementschedule of Cintas Corporation (appearing below) included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) of Cintas Corporation.

Our audits included thefinancial statement schedule of Cintas Corporation listed in Item 15(a). Thisschedule is the responsibility of Cintas Corporation’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, asto which the date is July 21, 2006, the financial statement schedule referredto above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements takenas a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forththerein.

 

 
| /s/Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
| Cincinnati, Ohio         |
| August 10, 2006          |

 

1

----
#### Earl M. THOMPSON, William E. Thompson and James A. Thompson, Appellants, v. B. G. GROSS, Mina C. Gross, Walter C. Ward and Joanna King Ward, Appellees.

No. 76-1537.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

*192Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellants.

Richard W. Wasserman, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

HENDRY, Chief Judge.

This appeal is taken from a final judgment rendered in favor of appellees/de-fendants and against appellants/plaintiffs in a suit filed by the latter seeking the reformation of a note and mortgage to conform with the provisions of a prior preliminary deposit receipt.

Appellants have raised three points on appeal, none of which we believe warrant reversal of the final judgment.

Firstly, appellants claim as error the learned chancellor’s failure to apply “the rule” (as to the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom) to appellees’ co-counsel. The exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is, however, within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of that, discretion is shown, such ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. *Beavers v. Conner,*258 So.2d 330 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); 32 Fla.Jur. *Trials,*§ 14 (1960). No abuse of the chancellor’s discretion has been shown.

Appellants’ second point argues that based upon the facts before the chancellor, reformation of the note and mortgage should have been granted. After carefully reviewing the record, however, it is our opinion that there was competent substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that appellants, by their action and inaction, waived their rights, or were es-topped to assert their rights, to have the instruments modified or reformed. The record reveals that appellants accepted the mortgage payments from appellees in the alleged “mistaken” amount for seventeen (17) months before the “mistake” was found. It took appellants another ten (10) months from the time of the discovery to actually institute suit. As such, there was no error in denying reformation on the basis of either estoppel or waiver. See generally 5 Fla.Jur. Cancellation, Reformation, and Rescission of Instruments, §§ 42, 43 (1955).

Appellants lastly contend that the chancellor erred in allowing appellees to amend their answer to conform with the evidence, to reflect the affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver and laches. We disagree, for Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(b) provides for the amending of pleadings to conform with the evidence in those situations when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by either the express or implied consent of the parties. *Sub judice*appellants neither objected to any testimony elicited by appellees during the course of the trial aimed at establishing the various affirmative defenses nor effectively showed where such amendment had prejudiced them in maintaining their law suit. See Trawick’s Florida Practice and Procedure, § 14-6 (1977).

Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that the final judgment appealed from must be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0596 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSEPH JOHN MCNAMARA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 29, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 24 2021

11/24/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0596
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21276]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 5, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Valley National Corporation, Lanett, Alabama; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Valley 
National Bank of Lanett, Lanett, Alabama.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 7, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-21276 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(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.

Dated:  May 15, 2006                           By:    /s/ Xiaogang Zhu
                                                   ---------------------
                                                      Xiaogang Zhu
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA, Energy senior leaders discuss annual operating plan 

By By Jonathan StackDLA Public Affairs

                Fort Belvoir, VA  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Energystrategicannual operating plan
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10349 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEVIN LA-DON MCKENZIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:00-CR-98-ALL

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

February 20, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin La-Don McKenzie appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine with intent

to manufacture cocaine base. McKenzie argues that the district

court erred by denying him a three-level downward adjustment in

his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1. 

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that he is

entitled to the offense level reduction. See United States v.

Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). “The entry of a guilty
No. 01-10349

-2-

plea prior to the commencement of trial is significant evidence

of acceptance of responsibility but does not entitle the

defendant to a reduction as a matter of right.” United States v.

Rickett, 89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1,

comment. (n.3). In determining whether a defendant has accepted

responsibility for his crime, the district court should consider

whether the defendant has voluntarily terminated or withdrawn

from criminal conduct or associations. See Flucas, 99 F.3d at

180; U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(b)).

A very deferential standard of review is applied to a

district court's refusal to credit a defendant's acceptance of

responsibility. See Rickett, 89 F.3d at 227. Although McKenzie

timely admitted his guilt, the district court did not err in

determining that McKenzie was not entitled to the downward

adjustment because McKenzie failed to withdraw from criminal

conduct while he was being detained pending sentencing. 

McKenzie’s pre-sentence report revealed that during a shakedown

of McKenzie’s cell, marijuana was found concealed in a hair care

container filled with lotion. In view of the evidence adduced at

the sentencing hearing, the district court’s determination that

McKenzie was in possession of the marijuana was not erroneous. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

EXHIBIT 31.**2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14(a) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(a))
(AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Mingda Rong, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of theRegistrant, China Recycling Energy Corporation ("China Digital Wireless, Inc."prior to March 8, 2007). 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for thesmall business issuer and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer'sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer's internal control over financial reporting. 
**SIGNATUREDate: June 12, 2008 /s/ Mingda RongMingda Rong Chief Financial Officer
 ******
*

 After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 11, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES C. BARNUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROGER HILFIGER; JAY COOK;

JAMES WALTERS; LARRY

MOORE; ROBIN ADAIR; and MIKE

NORMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-7061

(D.C. No. 6:09-CV-138-RAW)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

James C. Barnum alleges that an Oklahoma state judge, two state

prosecutors, and two of his own private attorneys conspired to pretend that he

consented to the plea agreement under which he was sentenced to a year’s

probation, when in fact he had not. He also alleges that a second judge, along
- 2 -

with a prosecutor, coerced him into paying court costs he should not have had to

pay. Mr. Barnum filed this action in forma pauperis seeking damages as well as

declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a thorough opinion,

the district court explained that the judges and prosecutors named as defendants

were immune from suit because Mr. Barnum challenges their official actions, and

that Mr. Barnum’s private lawyers did not act under color of law as § 1983

requires. It therefore exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to

dismiss this suit on its own motion for failure to state a claim on which relief may

be granted. 

Mr. Barnum now appeals. Because he is a pro se litigant, we have afforded

Mr. Barnum’s pleadings and other papers a solicitous construction. Van Deelen v.

Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). Even doing so, however, we

have concluded the district court’s disposition was correct for substantially the

reasons given by Judge White in his opinion. In so concluding, we note but need

not reach what may pose yet an additional hurdle to the relief Mr. Barnum seeks: 

the bar imposed by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), against § 1983

lawsuits that are premised on the invalidity of, and tend to undermine, a criminal

conviction. 
- 3 -

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge
No. 00-6821.

#### Phillips *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.