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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

. No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0437 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2001

- 004633 The Honorable Christopher A. Coury , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Francisco Soto Vega , Buckeye Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 2-13-2018STAT E v. SOTO VEGA Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Francisco Soto Vega 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 s econd 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 petitioner's burden to
s how 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 i n 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.
#### Anthony Joseph ANDARY, Appellant, v. H. W. WOOD and Beverly Diane Vickery, Appellees.

No. 70-612.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1971.

*595Bobby G. Wombles of Icardi & Wombles, Winter Park, for appellant.

Charles M. Everett, Orlando, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Wilcox v. Atkins, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 879.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
No. 12-2 074
UNIT ED ST AT ES CO URT O F APPEALS FO R T HE SI X T H CI RCUIT

T ODD R. ROCHO W AND JO HN RO CHOW , PERSONAL REPRESENTAT IVES OF T HE EST AT E OF DANI EL J

. ROCHO W , Plaintif f s-Ap pellees,

v.
LIFE INSURANCE CO M PANY O F NO RT H AMER ICA,
Def endant -Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R

BEFORE: BA

T CHE L DER, Chief Judge; BOG GS, MO ORE, COL E, CLA Y, GI BBONS, ROG ERS, SUT T ON, COO K , Mc KEA GUE, GRI FFIN, KET HLEDGE, WHI T E, ST RA NCH, and DONA LD, Cir cuit Jud ges.

A ma jor ity of the Judg es of this C ourt in reg ular act iv e ser vi ce have voted f or rehe aring of
this case en b anc. Six th Circuit Rule 35( b) provides a s f ollow s:

“ T h e ef f ect of the g rant ing of a hear ing en banc shall be to vacate the p r e vi o u s opinion and jud g me nt of this cour t, to sta y the mandat e and to res tor e the case on the dock et sheet as a pending app eal.”
Accor ding ly , it is ORDERED , th a t t h e previous decision and jud g me nt of this cour t is vacated, t he m andat e is sta yed and this case is r est ored t o t he d ock et as a pe nding app eal.

ENT ERED BY ORDER OF THE CO URT

Deborah S. Hunt , Cler k
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0369

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0370

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0371

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0372

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0373

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0374

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER                                          IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND                                                              EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

                                                         Exhibit 7.09 (Checklist Item #40)                                                                    Rehabilitation Plan

IW16-0375
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,005
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,112,171
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,111,675
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,203,841)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,005
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    30
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (24,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (24,510)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.10






This Amendment entered into on this  21st of March 2011 refers to Notes entered into between Enterologics, Inc., a Nevada corporation and Surge Partners, Ltd., a Delaware Corp.
 
 
 WHEREAS
  Enterologics, Inc seeks to amend Section 1.01.0 of the Notes previously executed and
 
 WHEREAS
 
 
 Surge Partners, Ltd is willing to provide amend those Notes as further delineated below and
 
 THEREFORE
 
 Section 1.01.1   is amended to read as follows:
  Due Date.The entire loan and accrued interest is due and payable on the due date October 9th, 2011or earlier, from the proceeds the Company receives from the sale of any class of securities through a private offering or through a registration statement that has been declared effective by the SEC, such proceeds being in excess of Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars.
 
 
 Agreed and Accepted:
 
 Surge Partners, ltd
  By:/S/ IRV BADER
 
 
 Agreed and Accepted:
 
 Enterologics, Inc
  By:/S/ BOB  HOERR
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard Lee JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50621.

D.C. No. CR-00-00271-R-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

*245Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Leonard Lee Jackson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jackson contends that because he committed no vehicle code violation, the traffic stop leading to his arrest was unwarranted, and his motion to suppress evidence should have been granted. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *See United States v. Garcia,*205 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir.2000). The district court’s finding that Jackson committed a traffic violation is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the motion to suppress was properly denied. *See Whren v. United States,*517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (observing that generally, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred).1

We reject Jackson’s contention that his sentence should be vacated on the ground that the district court gave no notice that it would deny him a three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The PSR and the government’s position memorandum provided him with notice, and Jackson’s counsel argued for the adjustment at sentencing. *See United States v. Palmer,*946 F.2d 97, 100 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting defendant’s claim that he had no notice of the district court’s intention to deny a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because the district court’s finding was based on evidence clearly available to defense counsel and defendant had ample opportunity to put on evidence and present an argument).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Jackson's contention that the search exceeded the scope of consent is waived because it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. *See United States v. Cormier, 220*F.3d 1103, 1113 (9th Cir.2000) (declining invitation to address argument that search exceeded scope of consent when raised for the first time on appeal).
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 2002



In
connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Yangtze River Development Limited (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual
Report”), Xin Zheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The
    Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
    of operations of the Company.





|By: | /s/
    Xin Zheng                                                                                                                                        | 
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Xin
                                         Zheng
                                                         

Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer | 





Dated:
March 17, 2017
#### Ricardo MENENDEZ, Appellant, v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 69-512.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 24, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman, certify that:

 

1.                     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2010-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                     Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                     I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                     All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

 

March 29, 2012

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman                                          |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman                                              |
|   | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----

* *
#### Terry FOSTER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47086.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Brooks, Guyton & Shaw, Kosciusko, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Attala County; Marshall Perry, Judge.

Affirmed.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10-866V

(Not to be published1)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

JANELLE A. SEIBOLD, *

*

Petitioner, * Filed: August 16, 2013

*

v. * Decision by stipulation; influenza

* vaccine; Guillain Barre Syndrome 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * (GBS)

HUMAN SERVICES *

* 

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DECISION

HASTINGS, Special Master.

This is an action seeking an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program

2

on account of an injury suffered by Janelle A. Seibold. On August 15, 2013, counsel 

for both parties filed a Stipulation, stipulating that a decision should be entered granting 

compensation. The parties have stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following 

compensation:

 

1

 Because this document contains an explanation for my action in this case, I intend to post

this document on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the 

E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

Therefore, as provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or 

financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar 

files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” 

Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, this entire document will be available to the public. Id.

2

 The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 

et seq. (2006 ed.). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references will be to 42 U.S.C. (2006 

ed.).
● A lump sum of $285,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, 

representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 

42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a). 

Under the statute governing the Program, as well as the “Vaccine Rules” adopted by this 

court, the special master must now enter a decision endorsing that stipulation, and the clerk must 

enter judgment, in order to authorize payment of the award. See § 300aa-12(d)(3)(A) and (e)(3); 

§ 300aa-13(a); Vaccine Rules 10(a), 11(a).3

I have reviewed the file, and based on that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation 

appears to be an appropriate one. Accordingly, my decision is that a Program award shall be 

made to petitioner in the amount set forth above. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for 

review of this Decision, the clerk shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr. 

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

 

3

 The “Vaccine Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims” are found in Appendix B of 

the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William DOYLE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 53207.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1973.

In re: William Doyle applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
U.S. Position on the AfDB’s Proposed Loan to the Graine Program Support

Phase 1 Project in Gabon

November 29, 2017

A project of this magnitude that involves the development of large agricultural plantations 

and cooperatives with accompanying public infrastructure, that includes road rehabilitations 

and drinking water expansion is likely to cause environmental and social impacts.

The United States does not agree with the AfDB’s decision to rate this as a category B 

project for which it released an environmental and social impact framework (ESMF) but no 

site-specific assessment.

The United States believes the Bank should have provided some environmental assessment 

of the specific work in Ndendé in advance of the Board meeting. The United States also 

would have expected to see a cumulative impact assessment or strategic environmental 

assessment that would have examined the impact that such construction, combined with other 

economic development efforts in the region would have.

By not conducting a deeper environmental and social impact assessment nor building in

environmental and social protections, the Bank has overlooked the broader impact of palm 

oil’s associated impacts, including deforestation in potentially critical habitats, which is not 

considered best practice. 

Furthermore, the proposed relationship between cooperative farmers and the Societe

Gabonaise De Transformation Agricol (SOTRADER) has the potential to be exploitative and

no details are provided with respect to mitigating those risks.

Additionally, the United States did not receive any detailed information on the possible 

resettlement impact from this project or information on whether it will impact indigenous 

people.

The conclusion is this operation is not consistent with U.S. legislation, and the United States 

wishes to vote no.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CompuDyne Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002
accompanying this certification and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey F.
Feidelberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.




Date: November 13, 2002           /s/ Geoffrey F. Feidelberg
                                 _____________________________________
                                 Geoffrey F. Feidelberg,
                                 Chief Financial Officer