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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOSE ABEL CABRERA-SOMOSA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0400 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-006195-001

The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

Jose Abel Cabrera-Somosa, Yuma

Petitioner

FILED 1-20-2022
STATE v. CABRERA-SOMOSA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge 

Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jose Abel Cabrera-Somosa seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This 

is petitioner’s sixth successive 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 We grant review and deny relief.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1030 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1030

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of the 
term ``spouse'' to recognize new State definitions of such term for the 
purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2019

Ms. Titus (for herself, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. 
Grijalva, Ms. Haaland, Mr. Higgins of New York, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, 
Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Norton, Mr. Peters, Ms. 
Pingree, Mr. Rush, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Suozzi, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and 
    Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of the 
term ``spouse'' to recognize new State definitions of such term for the 
purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SPOUSE FOR PURPOSES OF VETERAN BENEFITS TO 
              REFLECT NEW STATE DEFINITIONS OF SPOUSE.

    (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of title 38, United States Code is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the opposite sex''; 
        and
            (2) in paragraph (31), by striking ``of the opposite sex 
        who is a wife or husband'' and inserting ``in a marriage 
        recognized under section 103 of this title''.
    (b) Determination.--Subsection (c) of section 103 of such title is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(c)(1) For the purposes of all laws administered by the 
Secretary, the Secretary shall recognize a marriage based on the law of 
the State where the marriage occurred. In the case of a marriage that 
occurred outside a State, the Secretary shall recognize the marriage if 
the marriage was lawful in the place where it occurred and could have 
been entered into under the laws of any State. Except in the case of a 
purported marriage deemed valid under subsection (a), the Secretary may 
not recognize more than one marriage for any person at the same time.
    ``(2) In this subsection, the term `State' has the meaning given 
that the term in section 101(20) of this title, except that such term 
also includes the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
                                 <all>
```
### NUM BER 13-0 9-00 459- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ VIDA L JOE SA NC HEZ , A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On a p p ea l f ro m th e 36 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Sa n PatricioC ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Garza

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Vi dal Jo e Sanc hez , by and throug h hi s attor ney , has filed a w it hdrawal of noti ce of appeal and re q uestfor di smi ss al becau se he no lon g er des ires to prosec ute it
. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2( a)
. W it hout pass ing on t he mer it s o f the c ase, we g ra nt t he moti on to w it hdraw the a ppeal and dis mis s t he appe al pursuantto Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 42.2 (a ). H a ving d ism is sed the a ppeal at appel lan t' s req uest , no moti on for

### 2

re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

PERC UR IAM
Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b)
. Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 1s t day

of Oct ober , 200 9.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 84

Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free

communities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. BACA submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting

drug-free communities.

Whereas the National Family Partnership, Governors, Attorneys General, Parent Teacher Associations, and over 100

other organizations throughout the United States annually cosponsor October 23 through October 31 as Red

Ribbon Week;

Whereas the objective of Red Ribbon Week is to promote

drug-free communities through drug prevention efforts,

education, parental involvement, and community-wide

support;

Whereas drug abuse is one of the major challenges our Nation faces in securing a safe and healthy future for our

children; and
2

•HCON 84 IH

Whereas parents, youth, schools, businesses, law enforcement

and religious institutions, service organizations, senior

citizens, medical and military personnel, sports teams,

and individuals throughout the Nation demonstrate their

commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles by wearing

and displaying red ribbons during this weeklong celebration: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) supports the goals of Red Ribbon Week;

4 and

5 (2) encourages all Americans to promote drug6 free communities and to participate in drug preven7 tion activities to show support for healthy, produc8 tive, drug-free lifestyles.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 71 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 71

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
         require legislative approval for certain regulations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
         require legislative approval for certain regulations.

    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. If one-fourth of the total membership of the House of 
Representatives or one-fourth of the total membership of the Senate 
sign a petition disapproving of any proposed department or agency 
regulation, the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate shall 
transmit such petition to the President. The proposed regulation 
subject to the petition shall not have force or effect until and unless 
a joint resolution approving such proposed regulation and not 
containing any other matter is agreed to by each body of the Congress 
by a recorded vote and is enacted.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
1Professional Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2015 WL

1417329, at *8 (Del. Super.) (citing Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Kirkland, 2010 WL 61075, at

*34 (Del. Ch.)(“I will assume that if each side’s expenditures are reasonably similar...the fees

and costs were reasonably incurred.”)).

SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

Mary M. Johnston

 Judge

New Castle County Courthouse

500 North King Street, Suite 10400

Wilmington, DE 19801-3733

Telephone (302) 255-0668

 April 7, 2015

Blake Bennett, Esquire

Cooch and Taylor

The Brandywine Building

1000 West Street, 10th Floor

P.O. Box 1680

Wilmington, DE 19899-1680

Michael Kelly, Esquire

McCarter & English

Renaissance Centre

405 N. Kings Street, 8th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: PICA v. Hewlett Packard

C. A. No. N12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD

Dear Counsel:

The Court has reviewed counsel’s letters dated April 1, 2 and 6, 2015. 

As the Court stated in its March 23, 2015 Opinion:

Should HP dispute the reasonableness of the dollar amount

represented by 75% of PICA’s attorneys’ fees, HP shall provide a

full accounting of HP’s own fees and costs in defending the

entirety of this litigation. The Court then will make a

determination as to reasonableness.1
This ruling is clear. HP can attempt to demonstrate that PICA’s fee request

is not appropriate by providing its own fees for comparison. In other words, if HP’s

counsel submits an affidavit stating that 75% of HP’s total attorneys’ fees is less than

$1,028,130.38, the Court will require both parties to provide a full accounting of fees

to determine reasonableness.

The same procedure applies to PICA’s calculation of the fees awarded under

the Rule 37(b) sanctions. However, PICA is directed to review its fee calculations

to ensure that PICA is not recovering the same fees twice, as HP claims. The Court

declines to require PICA to break down the Rule 37(b) fees by category.

Finally, the Court awarded 75% of PICA’s total attorneys’ fees. This includes

the post-trial proceedings.

HP shall file any objections to the Proposed Final Order and Judgment by no

later than April 14, 2015. Post judgment interest will run as of the date the Court

enters the Final Order and Judgment.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston 

 Mary M. Johnston

MMJ/tjm

oc: Prothonotary
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2019 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of 

government. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article 

3 I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Sixteenth 

4 Congress the Speaker of the House and the Majority 

5 Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting 

6 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

7 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 1 RDS 

1 may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, 

2 respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District 

3 of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall 

4 warrant it. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 3, 

2019. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Peter
J. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands Holdings,
Inc.








/s/
      Peter J.
      Anderson


Name:
            Peter J.
      AndersonTitle:
            Chief Financial
      OfficerDate:
            November 6,
      2009
MANE‐VU NPS

Joseph Jakuta (MV) Pat Brewer

Rob Sliwinski (NY) Don Shepherd

Susan Wierman (MARAMA) John Vimont

Paul Miller (NESCAUM)

USFS

Metro‐4/SESARM Bret Anderson

John Hornback Bill Jackson

Jim Boylan (GA) Linda Geiser

Sushma Masemore (NC)

Doris McLeod (VA) FWS

Katie (Renwick) Tiger (Cherokee) Tim Allen

Tamara McCandless

LADCO/MIDWEST

Rob Kaleel

Jennifer Van Vlerah (OH)

Melissa Kuskie (MN)

Jonathan Loftus (WI)

CenSARA

Theresa Pella

IA ‐ TBD

LA ‐ TBD

TX or OK ‐ TBD

Place holder for possible tribal representative

WESTAR

Bob Lebens

Dan Johnson

Tom Moore

Rita Bates (NM)

Karin Landsberg (AK)

OTHER TRIBAL ATTENDEES

TBD

TBD

TBD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES 431, 441, 

452, 456, 461, AND 1033 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 462

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10

th day of April, 2015, upon the recommendation of the Criminal 

Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 44

Pa.B. 577 (February 1, 2014), and in the Atlantic Reporter (Third Series Advance 

Sheets, Vol. 81), and a Final Report to be published with this ORDER:

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that the amendments to Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 431, 

441, 452, 456, 461, and 1033 are adopted in the attached form. 

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective July 10, 2015.

Additions to the rules are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
Exhibit 32.1 Certificate:

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT OF GRAY PEAKS, INC.

I, the
undersigned, being the one of the Co-Chief Executive Officers, respectively, of Gray Peaks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge and belief, that (1) the Report
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
August 15, 2006



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Tim R. Sensenig       
|Title:                    
|Co-Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Se pte mb er

15, 200 9 H.P. LARGE, ET AL 

### . v. GR EEN E C OUN TY, TEN NES SEE

Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Gr eene C ounty No. 05CV754 Thomas J. Wright, Judge

No. E2009-02764-COA- R3-CV - FILED DECEMBER 28, 2009

C H A RL ES D. S US ANO , J R ., J., dissenting.
I am troubled by the majority’s determination that the rec ord before le ads inesca pably to the legal conc lusion of a permanent nuisanc e/inverse condemnation. I do not believe the defe ndant has prese nted fa cts negating or otherwise r ebutting the plaintiffs’ theory of tempora ry nuisance

. Th e tw o p la int if

fs make the fo llo wi ng ide nti c a l st a te me nt i n th e ir re sp e c tiv e a ff

ida vit s: For sever al year s, since the completion of the a fore mentioned bridge, my property ha s flooded seve ral oc casions per year
. Th e re is e vid e nc e in the re c ord th a t th e bridg e in q ue sti on wa s n ot c on str uc te d a c c or din g to specific ation s o r in acc ordanc e with the permit is sued by the Army Corps of Engineer s. The defe ndant – who had the i n i t i al b urden on its summary judgment motion – has not presente d any fa c ts a s to the natur e a nde xte nt o f the fl oo din g to the plaint if fs ’ r e sp e c tiv e pro perties ; no r h a s it o f f e r e d a n y f

a c t s r e f l e c t i n g t h a t t h e o f

f e n d i n g b r i d g e c a n n o t , a s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , b e re me die d to stop the flooding. A tempora

ry nui sance has been define d as a nuisanc e that can be cor rec ted by the expe nditure of money. Pa te v . Ci

ty of Ma rtin , 614 S.W.2d 46, 48 (Tenn. 1981) . The de fendant has not put befor e us any evidenc e showing that the i mproperly constructed bridge cannot be cor rec ted “by the expenditure of money” in such a way as t o stop the floodi ng cause d by it. This is its obligation on summary judgment. Han nan v . Al lte l P ubl ishing Co

. , 2 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 5 ( T e n n
. 2 0 0 8 )

. I n my op in io n , th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s n o t m e t i ts b u r d e n o f n e g a ti n g a n e le me n t o f

th e p lain ti f

f s ’ te mp orar y nuisance theory or otherw ise demonstrate d that they cannot make out their c auses of action. I believe the motion shoul d have be en denie d and this case allowed to proc eed.-2-

Ac c or din gly , I re sp e c tf

ull y d iss e nt.

_______________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyVice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 91 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal collectively 

to the Chinese-American veterans of World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2020 

Mr. TED LIEU of California submitted the following concurrent resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the Chinese-American 

veterans of World War II. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY 

4 TO PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

5 TO CHINESE-AMERICAN VETERANS OF 

6 WORLD WAR II. 

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

8 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on April 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 91 IH 

1 29, 2020, for a ceremony to present the Congressional 

2 Gold Medal collectively to the Chinese-American veterans 

3 of World War II, in recognition of their dedicated service 

4 during World War II. 

5 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

6 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 

7 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 

8 Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 47 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 47

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 2019

 Mr. King of Iowa submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

    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--

    ``The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```