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NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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, Appellee,

v.

ARSEN MOORADIAN, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0591

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR-2012-030152-001 SE

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Paul J. Prato

Counsel for Appellant
STATE V. MOORADIAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). 

Counsel for Arsen Mooradian, Jr. (defendant) has advised us that, after 

searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable 

questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an 

Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but has not done so.

¶2 Defendant and two other men were observed engaging in 

drug activity in a parked car at Casino Arizona. When police arrived at 

the scene, the car was filled with smoke and the defendant was sitting in 

the driver’s seat. While searching the vehicle, an officer found a plastic 

baggy containing marijuana and a brown glass pipe. After receiving a 

Miranda warning, defendant admitted “we all shared the pipe.”

¶3 The state charged defendant with possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. Following a bench trial in which the 

security officer, police officer and a forensic scientist testified, the court 

found defendant guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 1 

misdemeanor. The court suspended defendant’s sentence and he was 

placed on one year unsupervised probation.
STATE V. MOORADIAN

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and 

we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to 

State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), 

defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end.

¶5 We affirm the conviction and the sentence.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130868 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ROGER L. SCHIEFLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130868 COA: 262425 Kent CC: 03-091982-NM WARNER, NORCROSS & JUDD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings or dered by the Court of Appeals.

l0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
1 Kelly, Shaheerah

From: hswriter@frontiernet.net Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:47 PM To: Kelly, Shaheerah Cc: Celeste Subject: Confusion over old and new permit.



### Dear Shaheerah,

According to Sierra Pacific's PS D Permit SAC 12-01 signed by De borah Jordan on Feb 19th, 2013 (page 1)

"The PSD permit previously issued by the District to SPI is still in effect and applies to existing equipment at the SPI-Anderson site. "

Could you tell me the date Shasta County renewed this permit?

Thanks, Heidi Strand
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Joshua Gold Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Benjamin Ward, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 as of the date and for the periods  expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Benjamin Ward       |
|-------------------------|
| Benjamin Ward           |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
| July 22, 2011           |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

                                                                        

----
#### In the Matter of Louis Chaverra, Petitioner, v Ronald D. Hollie, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 243]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to decide the petitioner’s pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment in an action entitled *People v Chaverra,*which was pending under Queens County Indictment No. 11190/99, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application is granted to the extent that *440the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In the underlying case, by judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 8, 2001, the petitioner was convicted, inter alia, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentence was imposed. Accordingly, the proceeding is dismissed as academic. Santucci, J.P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1756 

To require the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce 

to provide estimates relating to the distribution of aggregate economic 

growth across specific percentile groups of income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2021 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself and Mr. BEYER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce to provide estimates relating to the 

distribution of aggregate economic growth across specific 

percentile groups of income. 

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 ‘‘Measuring Real In5 come Growth Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTIMATES OF AGGREGATE ECONOMIC GROWTH 

7 ACROSS INCOME GROUPS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1756 IH

1 (1) BUREAU.—The term ‘‘Bureau’’ means the 

2 Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of 

3 Commerce. 

4 (2) GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT ANALYSIS.— 

5 The term ‘‘gross domestic product analysis’’— 

6 (A) means a quarterly or annual analysis 

7 conducted by the Bureau with respect to the 

8 gross domestic product of the United States; 

9 and 

10 (B) includes a revision prepared by the 

11 Bureau of an analysis described in subpara12 graph (A). 

13 (3) RECENT ESTIMATE.—The term ‘‘recent es14 timate’’ means the most recent estimate described in 

15 subsection (b) that is available on the date on which 

16 the gross domestic product analysis with which the 

17 estimate is to be included is conducted. 

18 (b) INCLUSION IN REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year 

19 after the date of the enactment of this Act, in each gross 

20 domestic product analysis conducted by the Bureau, the 

21 Bureau shall include a recent estimate of, with respect to 

22 specific percentile groups of income, the total amount that 

23 was added to the economy of the United States during 

24 the period to which the recent estimate pertains, including 

25 in— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1756 IH

1 (1) each of the 10 deciles of income; and 

2 (2) the highest 1 percent of income. 

3 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

4 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Com5 merce such sums as are necessary to carry out this sec6 tion. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30132]



[[Page 61342]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[MT-070-96-1990-00]


Resource Advisory Council Meeting, Butte, Montana

AGENCY: Butte District Office, Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

ACTION: Notice of Butte District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, 
Butte, Montana.

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

SUMMARY: The Council will convene at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 
1997. Issues that will be discussed include Whitetail/Pipestone ORV 
alternatives, and how the BLM's two-tier system will affect the 
Resource Advisory Councils.
    The meeting will be held at the Butte District Office, 106 N. 
Parkmont, Butte, Montana.
    The meeting is open to the public and written comments may be given 
to the Council. Oral comments may be presented to the Council at 11 
a.m. The time allotted for oral comment may be limited, depending on 
the number of persons wishing to be heard. Individuals who plan to 
attend and need further information about the meeting, or need special 
assistance, such as sign language or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact the Butte District, 106 North Parkmont (P.O. 3388), 
Butte, Montana 59702-3388, telephone 406-494-5059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jim Owings at the above address or telephone number.

    Dated: November 7, 1997.
Michele Good,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-30132 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CDSI'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000022989
<NAME> COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,759,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               71,970,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            78,099,600
<PP&E>                                      29,383,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,895,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,622,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       41,318,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       600,900
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,684,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,622,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           145,228,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              136,432,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,844,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,512,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,331,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,331,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
        

</TABLE>
#### Jose Antonio SILVA, Appellant, v. William H. BUXTON, Southern Sanitation Service, Inc. and Florida Disposal Company, Appellees.

No. 70-886.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 21, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local o. 7 Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #01 

Does the application include an original signature of the plan sponsor or an authorized 

representative of the plan sponsor'! Sec scction2.01. 

Document 1. 1 provides a copy or the letter with the original signature of the authorized trustee on 

behalf of the plan sponsor of the Pension Plan. 

1. 1 
2.01 Who May Submit the Apl>licntion 

Document 1.1 

1l1e f()Jiowing is a copy oflhe let1er with lhc original signature of" the authorized tmstccon 

behul f of the plan sponsor of the Pension Plan. 

For the application letter, ~ee the lollowing page. 

1.2 
Redacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1704 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify and extend the 

deduction for charitable contributions for individuals not itemizing deductions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2021 

Mr. PAPPAS (for himself and Mrs. WALORSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

and extend the deduction for charitable contributions 

for individuals not itemizing deductions. 

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 ‘‘Universal Giving Pan5 demic Response and Recovery Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1704 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION 

2 FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INDI3 VIDUALS NOT ITEMIZING DEDUCTIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (p) of section 170 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(p) SPECIAL RULE FOR TAXPAYERS WHO DO NOT

8 ELECT TO ITEMIZE DEDUCTIONS.—In the case of a tax9 able year beginning in 2021 or 2022, the deduction under 

10 this subsection for the taxable year shall be equal to so 

11 much of the deduction determined under this section 

12 (without regard to this subsection) for such taxable year 

as does not exceed an amount equal to 1 13 ⁄3 of the amount 

14 of the standard deduction with respect to such individual 

15 for such taxable year. This subsection shall apply only in 

16 the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize de17 ductions for the taxable year.’’. 

18 (b) ELIMINATION OF PENALTY.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6662(b) of the In20 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

21 paragraph (9). 

22 (2) INCREASED PENALTY.—Section 6662 of 

23 such Code is amended by striking subsection (l). 

24 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

25 6751(b)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 

26 ‘‘6655, or 6662 (but only with respect to an addition 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1704 IH

1 to tax by reason of subsection (b)(9) thereof)’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘or 6655’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this annual report of Prime Estates and Developments, Inc.;





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





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





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





(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and





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





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





(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.




/s/ Panagiotis DrakopoulosBy Panagiotis DrakopoulosChairman and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 2, 2011
#### Mary Wyche BOUDREAUX v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49892.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1977.

Gwin & Gwin, R. Brent Bourland, Natchez, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 167 

To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who 

is not a federally licensed firearms dealer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by 

a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF A FIREARM AT 

4 A GUN SHOW BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT A 

5 FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 167 IH

1 ‘‘(aa)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person to trans2 fer a firearm at a gun show, unless the person is a licensed 

3 dealer. 

4 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a transfer 

5 to a person licensed under this chapter. 

6 ‘‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘gun show’— 

7 ‘‘(A) means an event or function— 

8 ‘‘(i) held for the purpose of facilitating the 

9 commercial sale, transfer, or exchange of fire10 arms; and 

11 ‘‘(ii) at which a firearm is displayed, exhib12 ited, offered for sale, transfer, or exchange, or 

13 is sold, transferred, or exchanged; and 

14 ‘‘(B) includes the entire premises, including 

15 parking areas, used to facilitate the sale, transfer, or 

16 exchange of firearms at the event or function.’’. 

17 (b) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is 

18 amended by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) 

20 shall be fined an amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by 

21 the number of firearms involved in the violation, impris22 oned not less than 1 year and not more than 2 years, or 

23 both.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS