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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NICHOLAS ADAM IVESDAL, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0435 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201300111

The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney's Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

Nicholas Adam Ivesdal, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 8-21-2018
STATE v. IVESDAL

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Nicholas Adam Ivesdal 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 

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 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, ¶ 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 that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
#### Pierce T. CRAWFORD d/b/a Crawford Builders v. John F. HERREN and Mary Alice Britt Herren.

No. 88-C-1053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Crawford, Pierce T. d/b/a; Crawford Builders; applying for writ of certio-rari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19513-CA; Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 26736.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 551.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-47666) pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Option Plan and
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60983) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Option Plan, Amended and Restated 1990
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, Directors Fee Stock Option Plan and Employment
Agreement with Bruce D. Benson of United States Exploration, Inc. of our report
dated March 14, 2001, with respect to the 2000 consolidated financial statements
of United States Exploration, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB)
for the year ended December 31, 2000.




Denver, Colorado
April 10, 2001
50052.

#### PITTS v. CITY OF MACON et al.

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit against the City of Macon, its chief of police, and another defendant Cameron. The amended complaint alleged that plaintiffs car was reported stolen to the Macon Police Department and then recovered by it; that the police department failed to inform plaintiff; that later the car was sold by the city to defendant Cameron. The plaintiff prayed for relief in the alternative. From the city or the chief of police she demanded $430 for hire for the unlawful detention of the vehicle. From the chief of police she demanded $400 for the value of the vehicle at the time the police came into the possession of the vehicle. From Cameron she demanded the vehicle or the fair market value of the automobile at the time it came into his possession. Cameron did not answer the complaint and plaintiff obtained a judgment by default from him which awarded her possession of the vehicle. The other defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. *Held:*

1. (a) Plaintiff s complaint states an action in trover *468and nothing else. As to the city, any liability under the complaint would have to be on a theory that it is liable for the tortious act of the chief of police as it is alleged that the vehicle was sold under his direction. Code § 69-307 states: "A municipal corporation shall not be liable for the torts of policemen or other officers engaged in the discharge of the duties imposed on them by law.” Thus, the grant of the city’s motion to dismiss was correct.

Argued January 6, 1975

Decided April 7, 1975.

*M. Victor Geminiani, Steven F. Granberg, Emerson R. Marks, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Lawton Miller, Jr.,*for appellees.

(b) As noted above, the chief of police allegedly directed the sale of the car. "Members of the council and other officers of a municipal corporation shall be personally liable to one who sustains special damages as the result of any official act of such officers, if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly, or without authority of law.” Code § 69-208. Even assuming that plaintiff could establish at trial that defendant chiefs conduct falls within the above statute, she cannot recover from him. In a trover suit a plaintiff may elect several alternative verdicts, one of which is to obtain possession of the property. Code § 107-105. By taking the default judgment against Cameron for the property, plaintiff precluded herself from any other relief. Dismissal of the complaint as to the chief of police was also proper.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*
#### Joe Allen WILSON v. Patricia Woodie Eades WILSON (White).

No. 58167.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 11, 1989.

Robert C. Stovall, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.

Nancy H. Stuart, Columbus, for appel-lee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lowndes County; William E. Bearden, Jr., Chancellor.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and PITTMAN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed , and Memorandum Opinion filed October

29, 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00560

- CR

ROXANNE ANAYA PEYRANI , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1634413

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant was indicted for possession with intent to deliver at least 400 grams of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). The indictment contained an enhancement paragraph. Appellant entered into a charge bargain with the State. The State agreed to redu ce the charged offense to possession with intent to deliver 200 to 400 grams of a controlled substance, abandon the enhancement paragraph, and waive its right to a jury trial. The charge reduction and abandonment of the enhancement paragraph had the effect of reducing the minimum statutory sentence2

from 15 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment. Compare Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(f) with id. § 481.112(e). In exchange for that benefit, appellant agreed to plead guilty to the reduced charge, waive her righ t to a jury trial, and waive her right of appeal. The possibility of a lower sentence constitutes consideration for appellant’s waiver of her right to appeal. See Jones v. State , 488 S.W.3d 801, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Appellant filed a pro se notice o f appeal. She was appointed appellate counsel one week later.
Because this is a charge

- bargain case, appellant has the right to appeal under
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and r uled on before trial, or (B) after receiving the trial court’s permission to appeal. Kennedy v. State , 297 S.W.3d 338, 340

– 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that charge

- bargain case is governed by Rule 25.2(a)(2)). The amended certification of defendant’s right of appeal states this case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” That certification is supported by the record

. The record does not reflect the trial court’s permission to appeal or any pretrial motions that could be appealed.
On October 15, 2020, we notified the parties that we would dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant demonstrate d , within 21 days, that the court has jurisdiction. On October 16, 2020, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to dismiss, agreeing appellant had no right to appeal.

We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdict ion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 170 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 170

  Recognizing Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, as the birthplace of southern 
                             gospel music.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 1999

Mr. Thompson submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, as the birthplace of southern 
                             gospel music.

Whereas Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is the home of many of the first major southern 
        gospel music songwriters, including such songwriters as James D. 
        Vaughan, Adger Pace, James Rowe, G. T. Speer, and William Walbert;
Whereas Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is the home of the first professional southern 
        gospel music quartet, which was founded by James D. Vaughan in 1910;
Whereas Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is the home of the first southern gospel music 
        radio station WOAN, which was founded in 1922;
Whereas Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is the home of the Vaughan School of Music, 
        which helped train the first generation of southern gospel music artists 
        and songwriters, including V. O. Stamps, Frank Stamps, the LeFevers, and 
        the Speers;
Whereas Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is the home of the Vaughan Family Visitor, the 
        first influential southern gospel music newspaper which was published 
        from 1914 to 1964;
Whereas Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is the home of the James D. Vaughan Music 
        Company, which has published millions of shape-note southern gospel 
        music songbooks from the date of its founding in 1902 until 1964; and
Whereas the Southern Gospel Music Association recognizes Lawrenceburg, 
        Tennessee, as the official birthplace of southern gospel music: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF LAWRENCEBURG, TENNESSEE AS THE BIRTHPLACE OF 
              SOUTHERN GOSPEL MUSIC.

    The Senate--
            (1) recognizes Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, as the birthplace 
        of southern gospel music; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        honoring Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, as such a birthplace.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raymond D. Martz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Raymond D. Martz   
|Raymond D. Martz       
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 8, 2007
#### MARIA POLLASTRO *v.*SABATINO POLLASTRO

*Nicholas W. Rosa,*in support of the petition.

Decided March 5, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 927 (AC 16666), is denied.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Presidential Documents 16649 

Memorandum of March 16, 2012 

Delegation of Reporting Functions Specified in Section 1045 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012, and Condition 9 of the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Treaty Between the United States 

of America and the Russian Federation on the Measures for 

the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive 

Arms (the ‘‘New Start Treaty’’) 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary of Defense[, and] 

the Secretary of Energy 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3 of 

the United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretaries of Defense 

and Energy the reporting functions conferred upon the President by section 

1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81), and by section (a)(9)(B) of the Resolution of Advice and 

Consent to Ratification of the New START Treaty. Subsection (a)(9)(B)(iv) 

of the Resolution shall be fulfilled in coordination with the Secretary of 

State. 

The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, March 16, 2012 

[FR Doc. 2012–6993 

Filed 3–20–12; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 5000–04–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PREDOCO0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
IA

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 43

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 10, 2000

Referred to the Committee on International Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the

United States should encourage free and fair elections

and respect for democracy in Peru.

Whereas presidential and congressional elections are scheduled to occur in Peru on April 9, 2000;

Whereas independent election monitors, including the Organization of American States, the National Democratic Institute, and the Carter Center, have expressed grave

doubts about the fairness of the electoral process due to

the Peruvian Government’s control of key official electoral agencies, systematic restrictions on freedom of the

press, manipulation of the judicial processes to stifle

independent reporting on radio, television, and newspaper

outlets, and harassment and intimidation of opposition

politicians, which have greatly limited the ability of opposing candidates to campaign freely; and

Whereas the absence of free and fair elections in Peru would

constitute a major setback for the Peruvian people and
2

SJ 43 RFH

for democracy in the hemisphere, could result in instability in Peru, and could jeopardize United States

antinarcotics objectives in Peru and the region: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That it is the sense of Congress that the President of the

4 United States should promptly convey to the President of

5 Peru that if the April 9, 2000, elections are not deemed

6 by the international community to have been free and fair,

7 the United States will review and modify as appropriate

8 its political, economic, and military relations with Peru,

9 and will work with other democracies in this hemisphere

10 and elsewhere toward a restoration of democracy in Peru.

Passed the Senate April 7, 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
Exhibit 21.1

LAKELAND BANCORP, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                          |  |                              
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Lakeland Bank                                             |  | New Jersey chartered bank    
|Lakeland NJ Investment Corp.                              |  | New Jersey                   
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland Bank)                |  |                              
|Lakeland Investment Corp.                                 |  | Delaware                     
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland NJ Investment Corp.) |  |                              
|Lakeland Equity, Inc.                                     |  | Delaware                     
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland Investment Corp.)    |  |                              
|Lakeland Preferred Equity, Inc.                           |  | New Jersey                   
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland Equity, Inc.)        |  |                              
|NBSC Properties, Inc.                                     |  | New Jersey                   
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland Bank)                |  |                              
|NBSC Holdings, Inc.                                       |  | New Jersey                   
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland Bank)                |  |                              
|NBSC Investment Advisory Services, Inc.                   |  | New Jersey                   
|(wholly owned subsidiary of Lakeland Bank)                |  |                              
|Lakeland Bancorp Capital Trust I                          |  | Delaware                     
|Lakeland Bancorp Capital Trust II                         |  | Delaware                     
|Lakeland Bancorp Capital Trust III                        |  | Delaware                     
|Lakeland Bancorp Capital Trust IV                         |  | Delaware
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07178 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 07178\07178_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07178\07178_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07178\07178_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07178\07178_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07178\07178_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07178\07178_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07178\Certification Statement_07178.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 07178\Supporting Documentation\07178_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 07178\Supporting Documentation\07178_MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07178\Supporting Documentation\07178_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07178\Supporting Documentation\07178_WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (                    *www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*

*Agreement No.:*                     011075-074.                

*Title:*                     Central America Discussion Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     APL Co. PTE Ltd.; Crowley Latin America Services, LLC.; Dole Ocean Cargo Express; Great White Fleet; King Ocean Services Limited; and Seaboard Marine, Ltd.                

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006-4007.                

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment reflects a change in the name of Great White Fleet.                

 Dated: March 9, 2012.

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-6195 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40713 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS EDUARDO ESPRIELLA

- VERA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 235

- 1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Eduardo Espriella

- Vera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Espriella

- Vera h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40713 Document: 00515348572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020No. 19

- 40713

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leav e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40713 Document: 00515348572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020