alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rodney ROSE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Samuel SMITH, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 14013.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 15, 1975.

*519Lynn R. Brown, of Salt Lake Legal Defenders, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Affirmed.

Rose was convicted of a narcotics charge (Title 58-33-6(1), U.C.A.1953) in April, 1972, which was a felony. He appealed and the conviction was affirmed but thereafter filed a series of three consecutive petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the State Second District Court, the Federal Court and the State Third District Court. In each one he repeated what he is urging here. He now appeals the dismissal of the petition in the Third District Court.

This court has spoken in a number of different cases, involving the same situation,1 which are dispositive here.

Defendant relied entirely on some dictum in one of our recent cases,2 — which dictum inadvertently stated the penalty for the offense — which, however, did not represent the law of that case which was decided on different grounds.

There appears to be no merit to this appeal and we so hold.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. *Brown v. Turner,*21 Utah 2d 96, 440 P.2d 968 (1968); *Bryant v. Turner,*19 Utah 2d 284, 431 P.2d 121 (1967); *Zumbrunnen v. Turner,*27 Utah 2d 428, 497 P.2d 34 (1972).

2

. *State v. Conover,*28 Utah 2d 335, 502 P.2d 552 (1972). The sections of the statutes cited in this case defining the status of the offense, were in error as to time of commission, having been repealed by Chapter 177, Laws of Utah, 1969 (reenacting Title 58-33-4 and 6, U.C.A. 1953).
Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aviation Rulemaking

Washington, D.C.

Subject: Petition for Technical Amendment to SFAR 106

To Whom It May Concern:

We, Inova Labs, Inc., of 3500 Comsouth DR, Suite 100, Austin, Texas, 78744 are seeking a 

Technical Amendment to SFAR 106. Specifically, our product “LifeChoice”, which has 

previously received FAA approval and is listed in SFAR 106, is being renamed “LifeChoice 

Activox”. Because of the renaming we need to have “LifeChoice Activox” added to SFAR 

106. Obviously “LifeChoice” must remain on the SFAR 106 list to accommodate product 

already in the field.

The renaming is being done to differentiate battery run time improvements in revision B of 

“LifeChoice.” These improvements provide significant advantages to the patient in that many 

domestic flights will now be able to be made without the need to carry an external backup 

battery.

The changes in revision B are essentially pump efficiency improvements and cosmetic 

changes to the case resulting in slightly different dimensions. (Old dimensions: 9.5” height x 

7.5” width x 3.125” depth; New dimensions: 7.875” height x 9.05” width x 4.38” depth).

To avoid any chance of confusion regarding supporting documents for this petition it is 

appropriate to discuss the “LifeChoice” history. “LifeChoice” was originally produced by 

International Biophysics Corporation (IBC). The supplied FDA 510(k) approval letter 

reflects this fact. IBC also submitted the original petition to add “LifeChoice” to SFAR 106 

(amended January 6, 2010 – 75 FR 739). Attached document “IBC Letter.pdf” attests to the 

transfer of rights to Inova Labs when the product rights were purchased. A subsequent 

amendment to SFAR 106 resulted in the original listing being changed from “International 

Biophysics Corporation’s LifeChoice” to “Inova Labs LifeChoice”.
The provided DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration letter also 

reflects the original submission by International Biophysics Corporation. There are no new

materials being added to the revision B model and the total Li-ion content (internal and 

external batteries) is the same.

Best regards, 

David Kollen

VP, Quality & Regulatory Affairs

Inova Labs, Inc.

Email: dave.kollen@inovalabs.com

Phone: (512) 617-1696
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7375
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICKY PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-35; CA-05-548) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ricky Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Parker's motion for “a recommendation in support of his request for a certificate of appealability.” The court construed this motion as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Parker also appeals from the district court's order denying his subsequent motion to amend filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

● ● ●
March 12, 1999

21370

#### Moonihoawa v. State

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6335

NICHOLAS WARNER JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS DUSING; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN; JANE DOE;

JOHN DOE; PATRICK CONROY; ANGELO LEE, Lieutenant C.O. IV; DEBRA HOOD, Nurse; JULIUS

BOATENG, M.D.; EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE, INCORPORATED; JOHN MOSS; JACK KAVANAGH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00-

1644-L)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald Joseph Crawford, GODARD, WEST &

ADELMAN, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint, and a

subsequent order denying as moot his motion to amend the complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Dusing, No. CA-00-

1644-L (D. Md. filed Feb. 14, 2001, entered Feb. 15, 2001; filed

Feb. 21, 2001, entered Feb. 22, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

NOTICE OF SALE OF PEANUTS

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT December 23, 2016

U.S.D.A.’s Farm Service Agency today announced the sale of peanuts. The peanuts were sold under Announcement SMAC3, Invitation No. 6 dated December 13,

2016.

Catalog 

Lot No Catalog Company Location Purchaser Tons Sold

Bid Price

(per Ton) CCC Revenue

Peanut 

Type

001 Bledsoe, TX Algrano Peanut Shelling, LLC 62.67 363.95 22,808.75 Runner

Totals 62.67 $22,808.75
27782

#### State v. Booth

Affirmed
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.3



                        CENTEX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


         THE UNDERSIGNED hereby constitutes and appoints J. Stephen Bilheimer,
with full power of substitution in the premises, as the undersigned's true and
lawful agent and attorney-in-fact (the "Attorney-in-Fact"), with full power and
authority in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in his capacity as a
Director of Centex Development Company, L.P. (the "Company"), to execute and
file with the Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the Company's fiscal year ended March 31, 1997, together with any
and all amendments thereto.

         This Power of Attorney and all authority granted and conferred hereby
shall continue indefinitely and, unless waived by the Attorney-in-Fact, may not
be revoked until the Attorney-in-Fact has received five days' written notice of
such revocation.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney this 24th day of June, 1997.




                                                   /s/ Josiah O. Low, III
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Josiah O. Low, III
                                              Director
                                              Centex Development Company, L.P.



<PAGE>   2



                        CENTEX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


         THE UNDERSIGNED hereby constitutes and appoints J. Stephen Bilheimer,
with full power of substitution in the premises, as the undersigned's true and
lawful agent and attorney-in-fact (the "Attorney-in-Fact"), with full power and
authority in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in his capacity as a
Director of Centex Development Company, L.P. (the "Company"), to execute and
file with the Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the Company's fiscal year ended March 31, 1997, together with any
and all amendments thereto.

         This Power of Attorney and all authority granted and conferred hereby
shall continue indefinitely and, unless waived by the Attorney-in-Fact, may not
be revoked until the Attorney-in-Fact has received five days' written notice of
such revocation.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney this 26th day of June, 1997.




                                                 /s/ David M. Sherer
                                              --------------------------------
                                              David M. Sherer
                                              Director
                                              Centex Development Company, L.P.
Exhibit
24.3 **POWER
OF ATTORNEY**
 
 
 WHEREAS,
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation (herein
referred to as the "Company"), is required to file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, under the provi-sions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2004; and
 
 WHEREAS,
each of the below undersigned holds the office or offices in the Company set
opposite his name;
 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Gary L.
Rainwater and/or
 Scott A.
Cisel and/or Warner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J. Lyons
and/or Jerre E. Birdsong the true and lawful attorneys-in-fact of the
undersigned, for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to affix
the name of the undersigned to said Form 10-K and any amendments thereto, and,
for the performance of the same acts, each with power to appoint in their place
and stead and as their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the
undersigned, with full power of revocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact may do by virtue hereof.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 11th day of
February 2005:
 
 Gary
      L. Rainwater, Chairman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)
    /s/
      G. L. RainwaterWarner
      L. Baxter, Executive Vice Presidentand
      Chief Financial Officer and Director(Principal
      Financial Officer
    /s/
      Warner L. BaxterScott
      A. Cisel, Director
    /s/
      S. A. CiselDaniel
      F. Cole, Director
    /s/
      Daniel F. ColeSteven
      R. Sullivan, DirectorThomas
      A. Voss, Director
    /s/
      Thomas A. VossDavid
      A. Whiteley, Director
    /s/
      David A. WhiteleyMartin
      J. Lyons, Vice President and Controller(Principal
      Accounting Officer)
    /s/
      Martin J. Lyons
 
 
 
 STATE OF
MISSOURI  )
 )
SS.
 CITY OF
ST. LOUIS  )
 
 On this
11th day of February, 2005, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared the above-named officers and directors of
Central Illinois Public Service Company, known to me to be the persons described
in and who executed the foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to me that
they executed the same as their free act and deed for the purposes therein
stated.
 
 IN
TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official
seal.
 
 
 /s/ S. A.
Kitchens
 S. A.
Kitchens
 Notary
Public - Notary Seal
 STATE OF
MISSOURI
 St. Louis
County
 My
Commission Expires: July 9, 2007
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134858 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134858 COA: 279097 Chippewa CC: 05-007986-FH DALE LESTER MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 9, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION

STATE COOPERATORS’ COMMUNICATION/FEEDBACK FORM

TO: DATE: 

FROM: PHONE: 

TITLE: EMAIL:

OFFICE/BRANCH:

OBJECTIVE OF COMMUNICATION:

REFERENCE MATERIAL:

RESPONSE DUE DATE:

I WILL SERVE ON A DISCUSSION COMMITTEE IF NECESSARY: YES____ NO____

RESPONDER’S COMMENTS: 

RESPONDER’S NAME: DATE:

PHONE: ADDRESS:

EMAIL:

SC-399 (07/17) USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 78978

- 3

- I

)

Respondent, )

)

v. ) ORDER WITHDRAWING AND

) SUBSTITUTING OPINION

MALEK KALID PTAH

, )

)

Appellant. )

T he panel ha s de termined that the opinion filed on June 1, 2020 shoul d be

withdrawn and a substitute opinion filed to correct a typo on page 12 . N ow

,

therefore

, it is hereby

ORDERED that the opinion filed on June 1, 2020 shall be withdrawn and a

substitute unpublished opinion shall be filed

.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II Incorporated
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Harry O. Nicodemus IV, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 15, 2005



/s/ Harry O. Nicodemus IVHarry O. Nicodemus IVChief Financial Officer
#### Odell P. MILES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. S. Tony COX, Director, Driver’s License Division, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 15990.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 2, 1979.

Salt Lake Legal Defender Assn., Walter F. Bugden, Jr., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Bruce M. Hale, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court revoking plaintiff’s driving privileges for his refusal to submit to a chemical test under the implied consent law, § 41-6-44.10, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1977. The order is affirmed.

The trial court found the police officer had grounds to arrest plaintiff; plaintiff was properly requested to take a chemical test pursuant to § 41-6-44.10; plaintiff refused to submit to the test; and there was an *explicit verbal refusal,*after plaintiff was properly warned. [Emphasis supplied.] The trial court concluded plaintiff’s license was subject to revocation for his refusal to submit to a chemical test as provided in § 41-6-44.10(b).

On appeal, plaintiff contends his acts constituted a mere constructive refusal, which are insufficient to constitute a refusal under the act. Such a contention is contrary to the evidence adduced upon which the trial court based its finding. The sole witness at the hearing was the arresting officer; plaintiff did not appear. A survey of the record reveals substantial, competent, uncontradicted evidence to support the finding of the trial court, viz., plaintiff explicitly refused the chemical test. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s appeal is without merit.

CROCKETT, C. J., and HALL, WILKINS and STEWART, JJ., concur.
28143

#### Harrell v. MRC, Inc.

Vacated and Remanded
# Table 1 Page 6

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 6	

# Table 2 Page 8

&"Arial,Regular"&9 8	

# Table 3 Page 9

&"Arial,Regular"&9 9	

# Table 4 Page 10

&"Arial,Regular"&9 10	

# Table 5A Page 11

&"Arial,Regular"&9 11	

# Table 5B Page 12 

&"Arial,Regular"&9 12	

# Table 5C Page 13

&"Arial,Regular"&9 13	

# Table 6A Page 15

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 15	

# Table 6B Page 16

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 16	

# Table 6C Page 17

&"Arial,Regular"&9 17	

# Table 6D Page 18

&"Arial,Regular"&9 18	

# Table 7A Page 19

&"Arial,Regular"&9 19	

# Table 7B Page 20

&"Arial,Regular"&9 20	

# Table 7C Page 21

&"Arial,Regular"&9 21&10	

# Table 8A Page 22

&"Arial,Regular"&9 22	

# Table 8B Page 23

&"Arial,Regular"&9 23&10	

# Table 9 Page 25

&"Arial,Regular"&9 25	

# Table 10 Page 26

&"Arial,Regular"&9 26	

# Table 11 Page 27

&"Arial,Regular"&9 27	

# Table 12 Page 28

&"Arial,Regular"&9 28	

# Table 13 Page 32

&"Arial,Regular"&9 32	

# Table 14A Page 34

&"Arial,Regular"&9 34	

# Table 14B Page 35

&"Arial,Regular"&9 35	

# Table 15A Page 38

&"Arial,Regular"&9 38	

# Table 15B Page 39

&"Arial,Regular"&9 39	

# Table 16A Page 40

&"Arial,Regular"&9 40	

# Table 16B Page 41

&"Arial,Regular"&9 41	

# Table 17A Page 43

&"Arial,Regular"&9 43	

# Table 17B Page 44

&"Arial,Regular"&9 44	

# Table 18 Page 45

&"Arial,Regular"&9 45	

# Table 19 Page 47

&"Arial,Regular"&9 47	

# Table 20A Page 48

&"Arial,Regular"&9 48	

# Table 20B Page 49

&"Arial,Regular"&9 49	

# Table 20C Page 50

&"Arial,Regular"&9 50	

# Table 21 Page 51

&"Arial,Regular"&9 51	

# Table 22 Page 53

&"Arial,Regular"&9 53	

# Table 23A Page 54

&"Arial,Regular"&9 54	

# Table 23B Page 55

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 55	

# Table 23C Page 56

&"Arial,Regular"&9 56	

# Table 23D Page 57

&"Arial,Regular"&10 &9 57	

# Table 23E Page 58

&"Arial,Regular"&10 58	

# Table 24A Page 61

&"Arial,Regular"&9 61	

# Table 24B Page 62

&"Arial,Regular"&9 62	

# Table 24C Page 63

&"Arial,Regular"&9 63	

# Table 24D Page 64

&"Arial,Regular"&9 64	

# Table 24E Page 65

&"Arial,Regular"&9 65	

# Table 25 Page 66

&"Arial,Regular"&9 66	

# Table 26A Page 68

&"Arial,Regular"&9 68	

# Table 26B Page 69

&"Arial,Regular"&9 69	

# Table 26C Page 70

&"Arial,Regular"&9 70	

# Table 27A Page 71

&"Arial,Regular"&9 71	

# Table 27B Page 72

&"Arial,Regular"&9 72	

# Table 28 Page 73

&"Arial,Regular"&9 73	

# Table 29 Page 74

&"Arial,Regular"&9 74	

# Table 30A Page 75

&"Arial,Regular"&9 75	

# Table 30B Page 76

&"Arial,Regular"&9 76	

# Table 30C Page 77

&"Arial,Regular"&9 77	

# Table 30D Page 78

&"Arial,Regular"&9 78	

# Table 30E Page 79

&"Arial,Regular"&9 79	

# Table 30F Page  80

&"Arial,Regular"&9 80	

# Table 30G Page 81

&"Arial,Regular"&9 81	

# Table 30H Page 82

&"Arial,Regular"&10 82	

# Table 31A Page  85

&"Arial,Regular"&9 85	

# Table 31B Page 86

&"Arial,Regular"&9 86	

# image1.png
133 P.3d 835

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

May 5, 2006

26146

#### Bankers Trust Co. v. Blanco

Affirmed