alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 12-2216

Filed June 11, 2014

LOUIS JOHNSON,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, 

Judge. 

A postconviction relief applicant appeals from denial of his application. 

AFFIRMED. 

G. Brian Weiler, Davenport, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2

MULLINS, J.

Louis Johnson appeals from denial of his postconviction-relief (PCR) 

application contending the trial court erred by denying his request for substitute 

counsel. In November 2009, a jury convicted Johnson of possession with intent 

to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while barred. Prior to 

trial, Johnson raised a pro se motion requesting a new attorney. The court heard 

the motion and denied it. Following trial, Johnson appealed the conviction but 

did not raise the court’s denial of his request for new counsel. We affirmed. See

State v. Johnson, No. 09-1895, 2010 WL 5050582, at * 2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 8, 

2010). Johnson filed an application for postconviction relief. At the 

postconviction trial, Johnson’s counsel orally amended the application to raise 

the claim that denial of his trial motion for new counsel violated Johnson’s Sixth 

Amendment rights. The PCR court denied the application, and Johnson 

appealed. 

Generally, we review denial of an application for postconviction relief for 

correction of errors at law. Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 

2012). However, when the applicant asserts claims of a constitutional nature, 

our review is de novo. Id. Thus, we review Johnson’s Sixth Amendment claim 

de novo. 

Iowa Code section 822.8 (2011) provides, with respect to applications for 

postconviction relief: 

Any ground finally adjudicated or not raised, or knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted 

in the conviction or sentence, or in any other proceeding the 

applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a 
3

subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief 

asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was 

inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended 

application.

An exception to these error preservations rules exists where the failure to raise 

the claim was a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Fountain, 786 

N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 2010). Johnson raises no such argument here, nor does 

he assert any other reason why he did not raise the claim in his direct appeal. 

We find, therefore, that Johnson waived the claim and we do not address it.

AFFIRMED.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Daniels, Appellant.

(No. 31229

Decided December 17, 1947.)

*Mr. F. W. Springer,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. J. L. Mac Donald,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Davis & Lipps,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, ' Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodolfo ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87SA31.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Oct. 5, 1987.

*432James F. Smith, Dist. Atty., Steven L. Bernard, Chief Trial Deputy, Brighton for plaintiff-appellant.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Frances Smylie Brown, Jaydee K. Bachman, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On September 4, 1986, the defendant, Rodolfo Arellano, was charged with first degree assault, § 18-3-202(l)(a), 8B C.R.S. (1986), as a result of an alleged stabbing of a neighbor. The defendant made a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge against him on the grounds that he was immune from prosecution under section 18-1-704.5, 8B C.R.S. (1986), which provides that under certain circumstances an occupant of a dwelling using physical force against an intruder shall be immune from prosecution for the use of such force. The district court ruled that it was incumbent on the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the immunity provisions of section 18-1-704.5 were not applicable to the defendant. Since the court had a reasonable doubt about whether the immunity statute applies, it resolved that doubt in favor of the defendant and dismissed the charge against the defendant. The People appeal this ruling pursuant to section 16-12-102(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986).

In *People v. Guenther,*740 P.2d 971 (Colo.1987), we held that a defendant seeking immunity under section 18-1-704.5 bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the statutory conditions for immunity. *Id.*at 981-982. If the defendant meets this burden of proof, then, pursuant to *Guenther,*the trial court must grant the defendant immunity from prosecution and dismiss the charges to which the immunity statute applies. *Id.*at 982.

In the instant case the defendant concedes that the judgment of dismissal was entered under an erroneous legal standard. Because the district court applied an incorrect standard in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the President and Chief Executive 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 the Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the Seattle Bank) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard M. Riccobono, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 Seattle Bank.

Date: May 20, 2009



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard M. Riccobono             
|Richard M. Riccobono                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

### and THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY TRADING AGREEMENTAND ORDER O. 8103 MODIFICATIONNO.2 TRADING AGREEMENT AND QRDER MODIFICATION NO.2 In the matter ofaTrading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner ofEnvironmental PrOiection ("Commissioner") and The United Illuminating Company ("OI"). WHEREAS. the Commissioner and UI, having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 8103 issued on February 14, 1996 and Trading Agreement and Order No. 8103 Modification issued on February 18, 1997, do now, by mutual agreement. 

### modify paragraphs e. I.. C.I. (d). C.2. and e.S. as follows: 1. Change the second date specified in paragraph C.1. from May I. 1999 to 

### May 1,2003. 2. Replace paragraph C. I. 

### Cd) as follows: No later than March I, 1999, 2000. 200I, 2002,2003 and 2004, include with its annual emissions report to the Commissioner, ERCs used (calculated as described in sections C.I.a. above). 

### by ozone and non-ozone seasons, for the previous calendaryear; 3. Change the date specified in paragraph 

### C.2. from May 1, 1999 to May 1, 2003. 4. Change the first date specified in paragraph C.8. from May I, 1999 to May 1,2003.
All otherterms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order No. 8103 and Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 8103 Modification issued by the Commissioner acting under Sections 22a-6,**22a~** 171, 22a-174. 22a-176, 22a-l77 and 22a-178 ofthe Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.



### /lJ1 Initials: (PriMed on Recycled Piper) 79 Elm Slreel • Hlflford, CT 06106
- 5121 liltp:lidep.Ulte.Cl. US An Equ.al Opporl..nil)' Err:plo)'t. Date: 

# <1l./11 7 I '

### THE UNITED ILLUMrNATING COMPANY 2 TRADING AGREEMENT A DORDER 0.8103 

### MODIFICATIONNO.2
./ 

### TIle United Illuminating Company hereby consents to the entry ofthis 

### modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice. The United Illuminating Company
Type Name: Albert N. Henricksen 

### Type Title: Group Vice President - Support Services Date: April 30. 1999 

### Entered as amodification ofan Order ofthe Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection numbered

# 8103thiS.x>~ day of 

# ¥ 1999.



### CITY OF BRIDGEPORT LAND RECORDS ur 

### J. Rocque, 

### Jr. ommlSSloncr



### MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPTREQUESTED Certified Document No.
Exhibit
      32.1











NEW
      WORLD
      ENTERTAINMENT CORP.





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 New World Entertainment Corp. on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michelle Dobson,
      President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      New World Entertainment Corp. and will be retained by World Entertainment Corp.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.










/s/
      Michelle Dobson





Michelle
      Dobson


President


September
      8, 2006
Good afternoon Pyrethroid Registrants, 

This email is to inform you that EPA has developed a pyrethroid registration review risk 

assessment strategy that will assess the pyrethroids as a class with regard to ecological risks, 

rather than conducting assessments by individual chemical. The toxicity of pyrethroids to 

aquatic organisms is well established, and expected to drive the risk conclusions; therefore the 

single, streamlined assessment will focus on the risks to aquatic organisms. Measures to 

mitigate this risk will be considered early in the development of the assessment. The Agency 

would like to explore potential mitigation measures with pyrethroid registrants as soon as 

possible, beginning in early 2015. This approach is intended to increase efficiency and 

consistency, and to clarify where the risks are focused in order to develop meaningful 

mitigation as a class.

The assessment will also initially focus on the pyrethroids for which the Pyrethroid 

Working Group (PWG) has conducted multiple studies and for which there is ample monitoring 

data: bifenthrin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrins, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, 

cyhalothrin, and permethrin, with the addition of the pyrethrins. With refinements, this 

approach is intended to cover all of the pyrethroids currently undergoing registration review. 

The assessment will be organized according to the use categories of agricultural, outdoor 

residential, indoor down-the-drain, and wide area mosquito adulticide uses. This will be a FIFRA 

assessment only, and will not include potential risks under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or 

to pollinators, which will be addressed at a later date. To that end, toxicity data called in under 

registration review will still be reviewed and incorporated into the assessment wherever 

possible; however, data that have not yet been received and reviewed for completion of the 

FIFRA assessment will be considered in the endangered species assessment. 

The pyrethroid registration review human health risk assessments will be conducted for 

the individual chemicals; a single streamlined assessment for human health is not under 

consideration. This is because there are different endpoints for the individual pyrethroids for 

human health, based on the most sensitive toxicity endpoint across all studies, versus the 

neurotoxicity mode of action for the cumulative assessment.

The anticipated date for publication of the draft ecological risk assessment, and the 

individual human health assessments, is September 2016. I will be coordinating the pyrethroid 

risk assessment effort across the Office of Pesticide Programs; if you have any questions, please 

contact me by email or call me at 703-308-8049. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Garland Waleko 

Chemical Review Manager (RMIB2)

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(703) 308-8049; waleko.garland@epa.gov
***EXHIBIT 31(i)***

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John Xinos, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Mistral Ventures, 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 period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me 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 my 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of 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 controls 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 controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 13, 2007  

 

/s/ John Xinos

John Xinos

Chief Executive Officer 

 

30

 

----
EXHIBIT 31
                           ==========


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

     I, Cecelia Pineda, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of NorthTech
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

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

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing  and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to NorthTech Corporation, including
its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within  those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect our ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have further advised our auditors that
there we are not aware of any material weaknesses in our internal controls;
and
b) that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved our
management or other employees who have a significant role in our internal
controls.

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
date of our most recent evaluation.

                              NorthTech Corporation
                              a Nevada corporation

May 14, 2006                  By:/s/ Cecelia Pineda
                              --------------------------------------
                              President, CEO, CFO, Principal
                              Accounting Officer and Chairman
                              of the Board of Directors
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Steven M. Caspers, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



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



4. The Companys other certifying officers 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 Company and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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 our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our most recent fiscal quarter (fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting; and



5. the Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to our auditors and to the audit committee of our Board of Directors:



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 our 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:
        11-27-07
        
        
        /s/  Steven M. CaspersExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer






---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1681 

To ensure that health insurance issuers and medical malpractice insurance 

issuers cannot engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations 

to the detriment of competition and consumers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure that health insurance issuers and medical malpractice insurance issuers cannot engage in price fixing, 

bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of 

competition and consumers. 

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 ‘‘Health Insurance In5 dustry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

7 It is the purpose of this Act to ensure that health 

8 insurance issuers and medical malpractice insurance 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1681 IS

1 issuers cannot engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or mar2 ket allocations to the detriment of competition and con3 sumers. 

4 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing 

6 in the Act of March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq., com7 monly known as the ‘‘McCarran-Ferguson Act’’), shall be 

8 construed to permit health insurance issuers (as defined 

9 in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 300gg–91) or issuers of medical malpractice insur11 ance to engage in any form of price fixing, bid rigging, 

12 or market allocations in connection with the conduct of 

13 the business of providing health insurance coverage (as de14 fined in such section) or coverage for medical malpractice 

15 claims or actions. 

16 SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO ACTIVITIES OF STATE COMMIS17 SIONS OF INSURANCE AND OTHER STATE IN18 SURANCE REGULATORY BODIES. 

19 Nothing in this Act shall apply to the information 

20 gathering and rate setting activities of any State commis21 sion of insurance, or any other State regulatory entity 

22 with authority to set insurance rates. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS