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

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOSUE MANUEL JAQUEZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0008 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

CR2016-00656

The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Josue Manuel Jaquez, Winslow

Petitioner

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Brian Y. 

Furuya delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 7-15-2021
STATE v. JAQUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Josue Manuel Jaquez 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 Jaquez’ first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden 

to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find the petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
#### John GEORGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 26, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62786-62787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31146]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined that its 
business requires the addition of the following item, which is closed 
to public observation to the previously announced closed meeting 
(Federal Register, Vol. 62, page 62077, Thursday, November 20, 1997) 
scheduled for Monday, November 24, 1997.

[[Page 62787]]

    9. Matters Relating to the OPM Report. Closed pursuant to 
exemptions (2) and (8).
    The Board voted unanimously that agency business requires that this 
item be considered with less than the usual seven days notice, that it 
be closed to the public, and that no earlier announcement of this 
change was possible.
    The previously announced items are:
    1. Administrative Action under Sections 116, 206 and 208 of the 
Federal Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) 
and (9)(B).
    2. Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and (9)(B).
    3. Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (5), (7), (8) and (10).
    4. Two (2) Administrative Actions under Part 704 of NCUA's Rules 
and Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    5. One (1) Personnel Action. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and 
(6).
    6. Delegations of Authority. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and 
(6).
    7. Final Rule: Amendments to Part 790.2(b)(7), NCUA's Rules & 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) & (6).
    8. Final Rule: Amendments to Part 791, including 791.4, 791.5, and 
791.6, NCUA's Rules & Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) & 
(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31146 Filed 11-21-97; 3:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0488

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM106AD

A300-53-0321, R02 --- 12/23/04

A300-53-6078, R02 --- 12/23/04

A310-53-2095, R02 --- 12/23/04

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
## NUMBER 13

- 19

- 00 601

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

FRANCISCO EZEQUIEL LOPEZ

, A ppellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 20 6th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's fifth and sixth motion for extension of

time to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on August 17 , 202 0.

On January 28, 2021, we abated this matter to address access to sealed portions of the

record and subsequently ordered the brief due on April 14

, 2021

. On March 22, 2021, the2 clerk of the court notified appellant that no further extensions will be granted absent new

and/or exigent circumstances.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellan t’s seventh and

eighth motion s for extension of time to file the brief and the extension s previously granted

in this cause, is of the opinion that, in the int erest of justice, appellant's motion s for

extension of time to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court looks with

disfavor upon the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter and

f urther motions for extension of time will not be granted absent new and/or exigent

circumstances

.

A ccordingly, a ppellant's fifth and sixth motion s for extension of time to file the brief

are each hereby GRANTED

. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the

Honorable Victoria Guerra, counsel for appellant, file the appellate brief with this

Court on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 1 9 , 2021 If the Honorable Victoria Guerra fails

to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 1 9 , 2021,

then the Hon orable Victoria Guerra is ORDERED to appear in person on May 20

,

2021 at 10:00 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, located at

the Hidalgo County Court Annex III at 100 E. Cano, 5th floor, Edinburg, Texas , to

show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

12th day of May , 2021.
#### Richard E. GERSTEIN, State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, Florida, Appellant, v. Jay McGLON, as Director, Division of Personnel and Retirement, Department of Administration, and J. H. Guerry, Executive Director, Judicial Administrative Commission, Appellees.

No. T-143.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 19, 1974.

Richard E. Gerstein and Milton Robbins, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen F. Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lees.

*93PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued by appellant, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and it appearing therefrom that appellant’s employee, whose compensation was the subject matter of the complaint below, was not joined as a party, and the court being of the opinion that the joinder of such affected person is necessary to the full and complete judicial determination of the issues raised herein, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint as may be deemed advisable wherein the employee is a party plaintiff.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and WIGGIN-TON, JOHN T., and CREWS, JOHN J., Jr., Associate Judges, concur.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220

August 31, 2017

Mr. Harry Boot

Chairman of the Board of Trustees

United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A
1910 Air Lane Drive

Nashville, TN 37210

Re: United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A (Fund) Application for Benefit Reduction

Dear Mr. Boot:

On July 20, 2017, you were notified that the Secretary of the Treasury (Treasury), in consultation
with the Secretary of Labor (DOL) and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), had
reviewed your March 15, 2017, application for a reduction in benefits (Application) and
determined that the Application satisfied the requirements of subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F)
of section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as added by Multiemployer Pension
Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA). The notification indicated that, as required under MPRA, before
any benefit reduction could go into effect, Treasury would administer a vote of eligible
participants and beneficiaries to approve or reject the proposed benefit reduction.

Following the administration of the vote, which concluded on Thursday, August 24, 2017,
Treasury has counted the votes and determined that 20.79% of eligible voters voted to reject the
benefit reduction. Of the 2,969 votes cast in the election, 1,041 voted to approve the benefit
reduction, and 1,928 voted to reject it. Because a majority of eligible voters did not vote to reject
the benefit reduction, the benefit reduction may go into effect. This letter serves as a final
authorization to reduce benefits under the Fund as described in the Application, effective
September 1, 2017, subject to the conditions described below.

Under MPRA, the Fund’s ability to reduce benefits is conditioned on the Fund’s compliance
with subparagraphs (C) and (E) of section 432(e)(9). Under subparagraph (C), after the benefit
reduction goes into effect, the plan sponsor of the Fund must make an annual determination that,
despite all reasonable measures to avoid insolvency, the Fund is projected to become insolvent
unless the benefit reduction continues. The Fund must maintain a written record of the annual
determinations, and this record must include a description of the factors considered to determine
whether all reasonable measures have been taken to avoid insolvency. The written record must
be made available to participants and beneficiaries. If the Fund fails to satisfy the annual plan
sponsor determination requirement for a plan year (including maintaining the written record),
then the reduction of benefits will expire as of the first day of the following plan year.!

"26 CER. § 1.432(e)(9)-1(c)(5).



Subparagraph (E) of section 432(e)(9) contains rules that apply to any benefit improvements that
are made to the Fund during the period that the benefit reduction remains in effect.

A copy of this letter will be posted on the Treasury Department website. Please contact Treasury
staff if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Sincerely,

ete! Coa}

Robert Neis
Office of Tax Policy
|              | CHINA      CERAMICS CO., LTD. |                                                                                                 |
|-------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              |                          |                                                                                                 |   |
| May      17, 2010 | By:                           | /s/ Huang Jia Dong                                                                                   |   |
|              |                          | Name:      Huang Jia Dong                                                                            |   |
|              |                          | Title:   Chief      Executive Officer                                                 |   |
|              |                          |            (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |
|              |                          |                                                                                                 |   |
|              |                          |                                                                                                 |   |
| May      17, 2010 | By:                           | /s/      Hen Man Edmund                                                                              |   |
|              |                          | Name:      Hen Man Edmund                                                                            |   |
|              |                          | Title:   Chief      Financial Officer                                                 |   |
|              |                          |            (Principal      Financial Officer) |   |

----
#### H. J. ROSELLI et al., Appellants, v. H B & S ADVERTISING CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellee.

No. 70-706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 00-7305.

#### Canfield et ux. *v.*American Eurocopter Corp. et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
WESTERN STATES OFFICE AND 

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION 

FUND

SECOND SUSPENSION APPLICATION

Exhibit 15 

(Part 12 of 12)

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 1 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 3 of 57


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 6 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 7 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 9 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 10 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 11 of 57


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 14 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 15 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 17 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 18 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 20 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 21 of 57


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 24 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 25 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 26 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 27 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 28 of 57


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 31 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 32 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 34 of 57



EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 38 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 40 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 41 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 42 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 44 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 45 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 47 of 57


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 50 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 51 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 52 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 54 of 57
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 55 of 57

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 12 of 12) Page 57 of 57
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,586
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,154
<PP&E>                                          40,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,087
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,316
<OTHER-SE>                                     260,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   341,733
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,377
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (567)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (669)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (887)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
#### Leroy Franklin CLADD v. STATE.

No. 37474.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 253. 210
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
          I, Michael R. Coltrane, President and Chief Executive Officerof CT Communications, Inc., certify that:
          1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CTCommunications, Inc.;
          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;
          4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
          (b) [Intentionally omitted]
          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
          5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’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 reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 6, 2003   By: /s/ Michael R. Coltrane        Michael R. Coltrane      President and Chief Executive Officer      (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KRISTA J. BAXTER,

Respondent

v.

ELIYAHOU WENICK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 59 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, James E. Hausman, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of CT Communications, Inc., certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CTCommunications, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report.
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
     (b)  [Intentionally omitted]
     (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 6, 2003   By: /s/ James E. Hausman        James E. HausmanSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Malachi TIMMONS, Jr., Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent.

No. 70-895.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 11, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.