alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
!" "#$%"%&$#'%(%")#)*%$%"#"+%"(#,%&-*+./$0"/ ,$&1#2%21345467589:45;<7=8:>;?8@A36=BC

D4EF84GC85?H



I+JK%K $%$#,$#-%K $.#&$%&&$%L&%/MI+JK)%,#%&$%M'%#/#(#/ ', &$L%"&/%L0'%%&$M$#

,, $&$$N#''''N$%L$,,%&&I+JKO%M00'#,$#&/&%"(#,%&(#$%P$%"%$2



K&#)'%%K $,, $&(%&$#L%/"%/ ,%&$% LM%"!0&&N"/&!"&%"&M0"(#/#)%!!"$'%&&,,%&&$L '$#0'%

'#%"%& ",%&10")"L&/M%%!#$&$(#%N",/ ,$!!#,#'M &#%&&(#$%P$%"%$N#$I+JK2#&#,' /%&

& ML#$$#)!"L&%'%,$"#,''1,L0'%$#)& "(%&'#%1/,%,#)$%&$$ &!I+JK,, $&2



%"%"%$N'%(%'&!QRK $%$#,$#-QRK $.,, $&&%/ST%(%'UQRK $/T%(%'VQRK $2



WM$##)T%(%'VQRK $,, $#&/%&,"#M%/#$%!''N#)0)%&/$%&00"X#L$%'UYL# $%&$$'2



Z[\]^_`a_bc^bcd

efghijklmnopgqighrghsiorrspigttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttu

vwfxhigsjkluopgqighrghsirrspigtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttty

	








 !!!"#$%"%&'$"() $*'$+,-.$*#/%$00%*"1#234/#5/%#*60$6*!#7&6#!6++

(%6'#,%.%(#&#&*##'#'0.#$#,%.$00%*"

8.9#-6.&&0.##*:0+60;*<=>?@>ABBCDE@



	
	
	
	



		
	


	


	

		


		






		
	 !
	
	"
#



	


	
		




	 !"

	

		
	
	#


	

	#	



	






 !"#$%&'()*%)+,&'&-))!'')*%)+./(&))!'0

/122"""0&!0!$(&0-32





4')*--(%'5)*%)+678%9:,:;('%:<*%'+0



	
	
		
				






		

	



	
		






 !"##$!#!%#&!'()*#+ )+"#,

-		.

/	01


.
2/034
	


1


/	5




6.	7		
7
84
	
9

.
.	
/0
:

.

4:;;11

6718
4.
<=21

	34

4
/	

01


.
2/03.



./	5>
/0	



?9=9@
A88
.
		.

.
84	
/	

01


.
2/03		B	B	
4
.

.
84	


.9

@


CDEFGH
#### State v. Ramacher

22765

08/14/2000

Vacated & Remanded
20274

#### State v. Anderson

Affirmed
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50294

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS CARLOS CANTU,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-99-CR-346-ALL-OG

--------------------

February 13, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Carlos Cantu appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress his confession for possession of marijuana in

San Antonio. Cantu argued that his confession was involuntary

because he had been misled to believe he would not be criminally

prosecuted based on any information which he provided. Following

a hearing, the district court found that the law enforcement

officers had not offered Cantu immunity from prosecution in the
No. 00-50294

-2-

offense of conviction. This finding is based on the clear and

unequivocal testimony given by officers at the suppression

hearing and is not clearly erroneous. United States v. Restrepo,

994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir. 1993). 

We review de novo whether statement was voluntary,

considering the totality of the circumstances. Restrepo, 994

F.2d at 184. It is undisputed that the officers were seeking

Cantu’s cooperation in an investigation into large-scale drug

trafficking in Houston. The totality of the circumstances

confirm the district court’s conclusion that Cantu’s confession

was voluntary and not induced by any misunderstanding that the

promise of immunity included the offense of conviction. 

AFFIRMED.
CSB BANCORP, INC.EXHIBIT 32.2SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thesix-month period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Paula J. Meiler, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Paula J. Meiler Paula J. Meiler Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer  *   This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwisesubject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except asotherwise stated in such filing.
24.
STERLING

CLARK

LEWIS

PIKE

AMELIA

BATAVIA

TOWNSHIP

BETHEL

FRANKLIN

TOWNSHIP

MONROE

TOWNSHIP

OHIO

TOWNSHIP

PIERCE

TOWNSHIP

TATE TOWNSHIP

WASHINGTON

TOWNSHIP

WILLIAMSBURG

TOWNSHIP

WILLIAMSBURG

VILLAGE

USDA APHIS

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

Data Source:

USDA APHIS PPQ

ESRI Basemap

These data, and all the information contained herein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Marketing

and Regulatory Programs Business Services’ (MRPBS) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and/or Agriculture

Marketing Service (AMS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ and/or AMS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only. This

information is the sole property of MRPBS. See full disclaimer at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/banner/help/disclaimers/

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE (ALB) ERADICATION PROGRAM

ALB Ohio Quarantine Boundary

ALB Federal Quarantine Boundary

Town Boundary

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2

Kilometers

Date Created: [ 3/25/2024

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ALB Ohio Quarantine
# C_2022191EN.01000201.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2022 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — AllianzGI-Fonds AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-545/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment (UCIs) - Resident and non-resident UCIs - Difference in treatment - Withholding tax imposed solely on dividends paid to non-resident UCIs - Comparability of the situations - Assessment - Account to be taken of the tax regime applicable to shareholders or unitholders in UCIs and of whether resident undertakings are subject to other taxes - None)

(2022/C 191/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AllianzGI-Fonds AEVN

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which dividends distributed by resident companies to a non-resident undertaking for collective investment (UCI) are subject to withholding tax, whereas dividends distributed to a resident UCI are exempt from such withholding tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
# C_2019004EN.01004001.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/40

---

Action brought on 2 November 2018 — Jareš Procházková and Jareš v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

(Case T-656/18)

(2019/C 4/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicants: Hana Jareš Procházková a Antonín Jareš (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade marks at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 — European Union trade mark No 3 531 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 in Case R 1159/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(2), Article 60(3), Article 64(5) and Article 70(2) of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(2), Article 60(3), Article 64(5) and Article 70(2) of Regulation 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) and Article 55 of Regulation No 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) and Article 55 of Regulation No 2018/625.

---
CA

ID

NV

OR

WA

AZ AR

CO

IA

KS

LA

MN

MO

MT

NE

NM

ND

OK

SD

TX

UT

WY

AL

DE

FL

GA

IL IN

KY

ME

MD

CT

MA

MI

MS

NH

NJ

NY

NC

OH

PA

RI

SC

TN

VT

VA

WV

WI

[

USDA, APHIS, PPQ

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

Data Source:

PPQ; ESRI

Date Created:

12/11/2018

Thesedata,andalltheinfo rmatio nco ntainedtherein,havebeenco llectedbytheU.S.Dep artment o f Agricu ltu re's

Animaland Plant Health Insp ectio n Service(APHIS),o rbyitsco o p erato rso n APHIS’behalf,fo rrestricted

go vernment p u rp o seso nlyandistheso lep ro p ertyo f APHIS.Seefu lldisclaimerhere:aphis.u sda.go v/help /map -disclaimer

APHIS PLANT PROTECTION & QUARANTINE

Japanese Beetle Distribution in the U.S.

0 230 460

Miles

Document Path:G:\DART\GIS\JapaneseBeetle\Japanese_Beetle_Infestation.mxdCo o rdinateSystem:No rthAmericaAlbersEq ualAreaConic

United States

Department of

Agriculture

No Infestation Partial Infestation General Infestation
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-450-CR

HOMER C. CARR, JR.	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	After pleading true to having violated two conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, appellant Homer C. Carr, Jr. claims the evidence is factually insufficient to support the trial court’s revocation of his community supervision.  We affirm.

	In June 2005, as part of an open plea, appellant was placed on ten years’ community supervision for the offense of intoxication assault.  Two conditions of appellant’s community supervision were that he commit no new offense and that he not leave Tarrant County without the permission of the trial court or his community supervision officer.  In November 2007, appellant pleaded true to having violated these conditions.  The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to nine years’ confinement.

	On appeal, appellant claims the evidence is factually insufficient to support his revocation.  Factual sufficiency review, however,  does not apply to revocation proceedings.2  Orders revoking community supervision are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.3  Under this standard, proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation order.4  A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation order.5 

	Appellant pleaded true to two of the allegations in the State’s Petition to Revoke Probated Sentence.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision based on this plea.  We, therefore, overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH	

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 2, 2008
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United StatesCode

 

The undersigned, being thePrincipal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (the“Partnership”), hereby certifies that the Partnership’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Partnership.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by thePartnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

 

Date: August 14, 2003

 

 
| */s/*  | * Dan  C. Tutcher*                    |   |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Dan C.  Tutcher                            |
|   | President  and Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2020054EN.01004801.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-295/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - Rural development - Decoupled direct aid - Key controls - Flat-rate financial corrections)

(2020/C 54/53)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, I. Pachi, A. Vasilopoulou and E. Chroni, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/304 of 27 February 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 59, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
Set Aside and Remand and Opinion Filed August 24, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 23

- 00363

- CV
DFW A

- 1 PALLET, INC. , Appellant

V. GWG WOOD GROUP INC , Appellee
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 22

- 14018
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida

- Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel Stating the parties have settled this case, appellant has filed an unopposed motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment, remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment, and dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion to the extent that

we set aside , without regard to the merits, the trial court’s F ebruary 21, 2023 default judgment and April 12, 2023 order and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties ’ settlement agreement

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). 230363f.p05 /Emily Miskel/ E MILY MISKEL JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DFW A

- 1 PALLET, INC., Appellant
No. 05

- 23

- 00363

- CV V.
GWG WOOD GROUP INC, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 22

- 14018. Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel, Justices Partida

- Kipness and Reichek participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE , without regard to the merits, the trial court’s February 21, 2023 default judgment and April 12, 2023 order and REMAND the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. As agreed by the parties, we ORDER each party bear its own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered this 24 th day of August, 2023.
3 of 3
# C_2021088EN.01001002.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-649/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Articles 4 to 7 - Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Letter of Rights on arrest - Right to be informed of the accusation - Right of access to the materials of the case - Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State)

(2021/C 88/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main criminal proceedings

IR

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant.

| 2. | The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
# C_2020262EN.01000502.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

(Case C-3/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Central purchasing bodies - Small municipalities - Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies - Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities - Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies)

(2020/C 262/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asmel societá consortile a r.l.

Defendant: A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

Intervener: Associazione Nazionale Aziende Concessionarie Servizi entrate (Anacap)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which restricts the organisational autonomy of small local authorities to use a central purchasing body to only two exclusively public organisational models, without the participation of private persons or undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which restricts the organisational autonomy of small local authorities to use a central purchasing body to only two exclusively public organisational models, without the participation of private persons or undertakings.

| 2. | Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which limits the scope of action of central purchasing bodies set up by local authorities to the territory of those authorities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which limits the scope of action of central purchasing bodies set up by local authorities to the territory of those authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
03/11/2024

National Veterinary Services Laboratories
National Animal Health Laboratory Network

National Animal Health
Laboratory Network
Coordinator
Christina Loiacono

Physical Scientist
Todd Bleifuss

Data Scientist
Yared Kidane

Management and

Program Analyst
Kristen Boucher

t

Management and

Program Analyst
Tari Moody

Management and
Program Analyst
Robert Lynch

Program Assistant

Jacob Ritland

Associate Coordinator
Beth Harris

Associate Coordinator

Kelli Almes

Associate Coordinator
Stephen Cassle

Management and
Program Analyst
Vacant (v. Rodriguez)

ORISE - Ohio
Emily Janovyak

Program Assistant ORISE (NAHLN) - Iowa
Traci Imlau Laura Alt

ORISE (NAHLN) - Texas
Selma Burciaga

Microbiologist
Kelly Burkhart

Administrative
Support Assistant
Catalina Louie

ORISE - Oregon
Tamsen Polley

Double-lined box
represents supervisor
132 P.3d 390

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Damon, In re Estate of; Trust Created Under Will of Damon, In re

25216

03/09/2006

Denied

109 Hawai'i 502, 128 P.3d 815