alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gale Paul ULLERICH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82CA1254.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Nov. 23, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1983.

Certiorari Denied May 7, 1984.

*1307Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Michael Kane, Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Louis A. Weltzer, David L. Worsted, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

TURSI, Judge.

On appeal of his conviction for first degree assault, defendant, Gale Paul Ullerich, contends, *inter alia,*that the trial court committed plain error in failing to ascertain on the record, a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to testify. We affirm.

Generally, there may be no appellate review of issues not raised in a motion for new trial. Crim.P. 33(a). *People v. Hallman,*44 Colo.App. 530, 624 P.2d 347 (1980), *aff'd,*652 P.2d 173 (Colo.1982). An exception to this rule exists where there is a claim that the trial court has committed plain error prejudicial to substantial rights. Crim.P. 52(b). *People v. Barker,*180 Colo. 28, 501 P.2d 1041 (1972).

After *People v. Curtis,*657 P.2d 990 (Colo.App.1982) *(cert. granted*January 24, 1983) was announced, Ullerich, in this appeal, raised for the first time the contention that it was per se plain error for the trial court to fail to ascertain on the record that he completely understood the waiver of his right to testify. We disagree.

In his motion for new trial, Ullerich did not allege that the trial court committed error in not ascertaining the waiver of his right to testify on the record. Further, on this appeal, Ullerich does not claim that the waiver of his right to testify was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. *See Watkins v. People,*655 P.2d 834 (Colo.1982) and *Reed v. People,*171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809 (1970).

Thus, we are not faced with a situation in which the defendant disputed his attorney’s decision that he not testify, *People v. Palmer,*631 P.2d 1160 (Colo.App.1981) (Kirshbaum, J., dissenting) *(cert. granted*July 20, 1981), or in which the defendant asserted that he was not adequately informed of his rights and was intoxicated at the time the defense rested. *People v. Curtis, supra.*

The *Curtis*decision relied on *United States v. Poe,*352 F.2d 639 (D.C.Cir.1965). In *Poe,*the defendant was misinformed by counsel of his right to testify. Based on that misinformation, the defendant “reluctantly” waived his right to testify. Moreover, the *Poe*decision was expressly limited to a situation in which the trial court concludes that the defendant did not receive a fair trial.

In the absence of an evidentiary record, an appellate court may not speculate about the reason or reasons underlying the fact that defendant did not testify. In cases such as the one before us, an eviden-tiary basis for such a challenge, if any exists, may be developed in a Crim.P. 35(c) proceeding.

Ullerich’s remaining contentions of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

STERNBERG and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 4 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 4

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that expenditures for a fiscal year shall exceed neither 
 revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation's gross 
domestic product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning 
                          of such fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

Mr. Kyl introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that expenditures for a fiscal year shall exceed neither 
 revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation's gross 
domestic product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning 
                          of such fiscal year.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of the 
United States Government for any fiscal year may not exceed its 
receipts for that fiscal year.
    ``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the outlays of the 
United States Government for a fiscal year may not exceed 19 per centum 
of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last calendar year 
ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
    ``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for suspension of 
the effect of section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for 
which three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide, by 
a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or 
over 19 per centum of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last 
calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.
    ``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the 
United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total 
outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government 
except those for the repayment of debt principal.
    ``Section 5. This article shall apply to the second fiscal year 
beginning after its ratification and to subsequent fiscal years.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 100 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 100

   Commending Clear Channel Communications and the American Football 
  Coaches Association for their dedication and efforts for protecting 
children by providing a vital means for locating the Nation's missing, 
                    kidnapped, and runaway children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

  Mr. Duncan submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Commending Clear Channel Communications and the American Football 
  Coaches Association for their dedication and efforts for protecting 
children by providing a vital means for locating the Nation's missing, 
                    kidnapped, and runaway children.

Whereas children are the Nation's greatest asset for the future;
Whereas more than 800,000 children disappear each year in the United States, and 
        the problem of missing, kidnapped, and runaway children potentially 
        affects every community in the Nation;
Whereas the United States is committed to the protection of its children as 
        essential for the Nation's strong and vital growth;
Whereas Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches 
        Association are making the United States the world leader in the 
        protection of children by providing 60 million Inkless Child 
        Identification Kits for use by parents;
Whereas these kits allow parents to keep vital information, current photographs, 
        and fingerprints readily available to provide to law enforcement 
        agencies throughout the Nation in the event of an emergency; and
Whereas Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches 
        Association, through the efforts of board members, officers, employees, 
        and subsidiary companies and the leadership of Lowry Mays, Mark Mays, 
        and Grant Teaff, display an outstanding dedication to the children in 
        communities throughout the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress commends Clear Channel Communications and the 
American Football Coaches Association for their dedication and efforts 
for protecting children by providing a vital means for locating the 
Nation's missing, kidnapped, and runaway children.
                                 <all>
```
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 21, 201 6.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-2119

Lower Tribunal No. 92-20576 A

________________



### Jose Cruz

, Petitioner,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Respondent.

A case of original jurisdiction

– Petition for Review.

Jose Cruz, in proper person

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, for respondent.

Before WELLS, SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ.

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SHEPHERD, J.On October 13, 2016, this court denied Jose Cruz’s most recent attempt to

seek review of the sentence entered below in lower court case number 92-20576A,

at the same time ordering Cruz to show cause why he should not be prohibited

from any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions dealing with Case

No. 92-20576A. Cruz responded to the show cause order, but has not shown good

reason for not being prohibited from further pro se filings. 1

Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to

refuse to accept for filing in this court any further appeals, petitions or motions

relating to Cruz’s conviction and sentence in Case No. 92-20576A, unless they are

filed by a Florida Bar member in good standing. Any such further unauthorized

pro se filings by Cruz will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of

written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for

consideration by it of disciplinary action. See 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2016)

.

1 Unbeknownst to this panel, Cruz previously was prohibited by this court from

further pro se filing concerning Case No. 92-20576A. Cruz v. State

, 981 So. 2d

1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

2
Second Amendment to Supply Agreement dated as of June 10, 2004



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
  
 This is the Second Amendment to the Supply Agreement dated as of April 2, 2003, among Midas International
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“MIC”), Part Warehouse, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“PWI”) (collectively “Midas”), and AutoZone Parts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, successor by assignment to AutoZone, Inc.
(“AutoZone”) (the “Agreement”), and shall be effective as of the 10th day of June, 2004.

  
 For good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 1.
	 Beginning June 20, 2004, through July 31, 2004, AutoZone agrees to pay each Midas Shop [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION]
for every [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION] box top for [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION] returned to the AutoZone retail location which services the Midas Shop’s
commercial account. No credits will be given for box tops returned either before June 20, 2004, or after July 31, 2004. All box tops must be from [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION] purchased from AutoZone between
June 20, 2004, through July 31, 2004. 


  

	 2.
	 AutoZone shall ensure that the earned credits will be paid [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION] to each participating Midas
Shop by the AutoZone retail location which services the Midas Shop’s commercial account. 


  

	 3.
	 Other than as amended by this Amendment, the other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the
Agreement. 
  

									
	 AUTOZONE PARTS, INC.
	 	 	 	 MIDAS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

					
	 By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 
	 Date:
	 	 	 	 	 	 Date:
	 	 
				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 PARTS WAREHOUSE, INC.

					
	 By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 
	 Date:
	 	 	 	 	 	 Date:
EXHIBIT
        10.5

       

      EVEREST
        ACQUISITION CORPORATION

       

      


      Asia
        Pacific Capital (HK) Ltd.

      15/F,
        The
        Hong Kong Club Building

      3A
        Chater
        Road 

      Central
        Hong Kong

       

      Gentlemen:

       

      This
        letter will confirm our agreement, that commencing on the effective date
        (“Effective Date”) of the registration statement of the initial public offering
        (“IPO”) of the securities of Everest Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) and
        continuing until the consummation by the Company of a “Business Combination” (as
        described in the Company’s IPO prospectus), Asia Pacific Capital (HK) Ltd.
        (“Asia Pacific Capital”) shall make available to the Company certain
        administrative, technology and secretarial services, as well as the use of
        certain limited office space, including a conference room, in the Hong Kong
        Central area as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated
        at
        15/F, The Hong Kong Club Building, 3A Chater Road, Central Hong Kong (or
        any
        successor location). In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay to Asia
        Pacific
        Capital the sum of $7,500 per month (the “Fee”) on the Effective Date and
        continuing monthly thereafter.

       

      Very
        truly yours,

       

      EVEREST
        ACQUISITION CORPORATION

       

      By:_______________________________

      Name:
        Virendra Nath

      Title:
        Chief Financial Officer

       

       

      AGREED
        TO
        AND ACCEPTED BY:

       

      ASIA
        PACIFIC CAPITAL (HK), LTD.

       

      By:
        ____________________________

      Name:
        Ashok S. Kothari

      Title:
        Managing
        Director
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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 Annual Report of Allion Healthcare, Inc. on Form 10-K for
      the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007, each of the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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




(ii)
      The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results.








Dated: March 16, 2007
            /s/
                Michael P. MoranMichael
                P. MoranChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                James G. SpencerJames
                G. SpencerChief
                Financial Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1947 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Aminothiophenol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. ISAKSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2- 

Aminothiophenol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-AMINOTHIOPHENOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.57 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2-Aminothiophenol) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1947 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23218
Dear Mr. Paylor: 

### DEC - 11011

On August 30,2011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the VirginiaDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality pertaining to new source review permitting to address national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers. EPAhas determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action.
Ifmembers ofyour staffhave any questions, they may direct them to 

### Mr. Dave Talley, Office ofPermits and Air Toxics, at (215) 814-2117. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely,

# j)i~'Q~ DianaEsher, Director Air Protection Division

CustomerServiceHotline: 1-800-438-2474
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 42 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 42

             Relating to the retirement of David G. Marcos.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
             Relating to the retirement of David G. Marcos.

Whereas David G. Marcos became an employee of the United States Senate on August 
        16, 1960, and since that date has ably and faithfully upheld the highest 
        standards and traditions of the staff of the United States Senate;
Whereas David G. Marcos has faithfully served the United States Senate as 
        Executive Clerk during the past 4 years;
Whereas, prior to that, David G. Marcos rendered exemplary service as the 
        Assistant Executive Clerk, Keeper of the Stationery, Assistant Keeper of 
        the Stationery and other positions of responsibility in offices of the 
        United States Senate for 35 years;
Whereas, during his 39 year period, David G. Marcos has at all times discharged 
        the duties and responsibilities of his office with extraordinary 
        efficiency, aplomb, and devotion; and
Whereas David G. Marcos' service to the United States Senate has been marked by 
        his personal commitment to the highest standards of excellence and 
        highest regard for the institution of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States Senate commends David G. Marcos 
for his honorable service to his country and to the United States 
Senate, and wishes to express its deep appreciation and gratitude for 
his long, faithful, and outstanding service.
    Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of 
this resolution to David G. Marcos.
                                 <all>
```
1 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
April 29, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60631 Summary Calendar

BRIAN F. HOGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT Of CORRECTIONS; EMMITT L. SPARKMAN, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary; ETHEL CARLIZE, Disciplinary Chairperson; GORMILLA, Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-152-P-A

-------------------- Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Brian F. Hogan, Mississippi prisoner #67383, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a

claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hogan argues

that the district court erred by dismissing his action for failure

to state a claim. He argues that he did not receive due process

and that he did identify a cognizable liberty interest because his2

disciplinary hearin g resulted by operation of prison policy in

additional time being added to the period he already was serving in

administrative segregation.

The Due Process Clause was not implicated by the 30 days’ loss

of privileges Hogan alleged he received as punishment at

his disciplinary hearing. To the extent that any extension of

Hogan’s time in segregation resulting from the disciplinary hearing

might be actionable in Hogan’s challenge to the hearing, there is

no protected liberty interest against segregated confinement.

Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486 (1995). The dismissal of

Hogan’s action for failure to state a claim was not erroneous.

Hogan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as

frivolous. S ee Howard v. King
, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983);

5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Hogan’s action

and this court’s dismissal of his appeal each count as a “strike”

against Hogan for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). A depegb a v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.

1996). This court previously dismissed one of Hogan’s appeals as

frivolous. H ogan v. Nobles
, No. 99-60295, 2 (5t h Cir. Oct. 17,

2000) (unpublished). Hogan thus has three “strikes” and he may not

proceed IF P in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).3

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 T H C IR

. R. 42.2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

SANCTION IMPOSED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-3 No. 333-67382, as amended) of Plum Creek Timber Company,Inc. and in the related Prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-71192) pertaining to the Georgia-Pacific Corporation 1995 Shareholder ValueIncentive Plan and Georgia-Pacific Corporation/Timber Group 1997 Long-termIncentive Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59812)pertaining to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.of our reports dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc., Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal central over financial reportingof Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

 

Seattle, Washington

March 3, 2005

 

----