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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. JOE FRANKLIN MULDROW , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 2 2

- 00 88 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR20 16

- 005720

- 002 CR2016

- 005710

- 002 CR2013

- 111024

- 001 The Honorable William R. Wingard , Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent Joe Franklin Muldrow, Eloy Petitioner FILED 9-8-2022STAT E v. MULDROW Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz , Judge Angela K. Paton , and Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Joe Franklin Muldrow seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (Ap p. 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.
##### 



Exhibit 10.39
 
   1.
    
    Schooling and Education Allowance: The Schooling and Educational Allowance
will be $50,000 per year for the period May 15 2004 to May 15 2006 and shall be $25,000
per year for the period May 15 2006 to May 15 2008 subject to an annual review of tuition
rates at the commencement of each school year. This allowance shall be grossed up at a
rate of 32.5% for tax purposes.2.
    
    Travel Allowance: The Travel Allowance will be calculated on the basis of the
cost of an unrestricted and refundable Full Economy Ticket from Houston Texas to London
England for yourself and your family per year. The Travel Allowance may be used for any
travel related expenses such as airfares, car rental, train fares, taxis and other forms
of transportation. This allowance shall be grossed up at a rate of 32.5% for tax purposes.3.
    
    Shipment of Household Goods and Personal Effects: The Company shall reimburse
you for the cost of the shipment of your household goods and personal effects as and when
these are incurred.4.
    
    Closing Costs in U.S.: The Company shall reimburse you for customary Closing
Costs in the U.S. as and when these are incurred.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanley Small, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.), rendered October 20, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that reversal is warranted because the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant reliably and accurately identified the defendant as the robber. However, since the defendant did not raise this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s identity as the man who robbed the complainant *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969).

Further, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant sustained physical injury in the course of the robbery. The complainant testified that he was placed in a chokehold, punched in the face and chest, swung by his arm into a fence and dragged onto a handball court which was sunken 18 inches into the ground. He testified that, as a result, he suffered pain in his wrist, his knee was bruised and bloodied, and he experienced pain for from three to four weeks *(see,*Penal Law § 160.10 [2]; § 10.00 [9]; *see also, People v Greene,*70 NY2d 860; *People v Poe,*158 AD2d 558; *People v McNair,*147 AD2d 593; *People v Rogers,*138 AD2d 419).

*224Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# Madison - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeast Georgia Regional Commission Executive Director Burke Walker Email &#x62;&#x77;&#x61;&#x6c;&#x6b;&#x65;&#x72;&#x40;&#110;&#101;&#103;&#114;&#99;&#46;&#111;rgThe post Northeast Georgia Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
ZACHARY LITTLETON
, Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1029

Opinion filed July 26, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Lanitra S. Sanchez of Sanchez Law, Tampa , for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.
The petition for belated appeal is granted. Petitioner shall be allowed a belated
appeal from the order denying defendant’s pro se amended motion for postconviction
relief in Escambia County Circuit Court cas e number 2009

- CF

- 5574. Upon issuance
of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the
circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal.

RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

                                              Office of the Clerk,

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2012.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on July 27, 2012 at 11:54 
     a.m.:
       That the Senate concur in the House amendment to the bill 
     S. 1959.
       That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res. 
     90.
       That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res. 
     133.
       That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res. 
     134.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert F. Reeves,
     Deputy Clerk.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009193EN.01003502.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidis v Commission

(Case F-72/08) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Action - Prior administrative complaint - Tacit reply - Excusable error - None - Implicit rejection decision - Complaint out of time - Inadmissibility - Judgment of a Community court - Substantial new fact - None)

2009/C 193/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Michalis Ketselidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities to be taken into account for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | Mr Ketselidou is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ketselidou is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

---

(1)  OJ C 272 of 25.10.2008, p. 51

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 15


                                                       [LOGO OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN]

Report of Independent Public Accountants

To Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets of
Education Management Corporation (a Pennsylvania corporation) and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, the related condensed consolidated statements
of income and cash flows for the three-month and six-month periods ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modification that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation
and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 (not presented herein), and, in our report
dated July 27, 2001, we expressed an unqualified opinion on that statement. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material
respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been
derived.


                                            /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
January 25, 2002
# C_2008247EN.01000601.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2008 — Zino Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

(Case C-302/08)

(2008/C 247/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

Defendant:

Question referred

In the light of the accession of the European Community to the Madrid Protocol, is Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003, concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, despite the use of the term ‘Community trade mark’, marks with international registrations within the meaning of Article 146 et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003, are also covered?

1

et seq

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1486-E1487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              HONORING THE LIFE OF J.R. ``DICK'' BIRDWELL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BILL FLORES

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 12, 2012

  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to J.R. ``Dick'' 
Birdwell, a proud lifelong Aggie and former City Councilman of College 
Station, Texas, and Mayor and City Councilman of Lake Jackson, Texas. 
He passed on April 4th at the age of 81, only two days after he and his 
beloved wife Joyce celebrated their 59th wedding anniversary.
  Dick Birdwell was born in Stephenville and moved to College Station 
in 1945. He graduated from A&M Consolidated High School and went on to 
receive his undergraduate and masters degrees from Texas A&M 
University. While at A&M he was a member of the Ross Volunteers and a 
battalion commander in the Corps of Cadets.
  Birdwell was a longtime Dow Chemical Company employee in Houston; 
Brisbane, Australia; Lake Jackson, Texas; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
After retiring he returned to College Station.
  Mayor Birdwell served the citizens of Lake Jackson as Councilman and 
Mayor from 1979 to 1982, he also served as Councilman of College 
Station for three terms, serving two consecutive terms from 1988 to 
1992, and a third term from 1996 to 1998.
  While serving on City Council, Birdwell was known to extensively 
study the issues and was not shy about expressing his ideas. He was 
always well prepared for council meetings and showed pride in serving 
his community.
  While residing in College Station, Birdwell would begin to serve his 
community through numerous engineering organizations, as a mediator for 
the Dispute Resolution Agency of

[[Page E1487]]

Brazos County, as an active member of the Rotary Club of College 
Station, and as a docent for both the George Bush Presidential Library 
and Museum and the Texas A&M Sports Museum.
  Even after leaving City Council, Birdwell would take on other city 
causes such as a petition drive that led to freezing property taxes for 
senior citizens and the disabled. He would also serve on the cemetery 
board and as an alternate member of the zoning board of adjustments.
  College Station Mayor Nancy Berry may have said it best when she 
described the passing of Dick Birdwell as ``a phenomenal loss for our 
community.''
  Today I pay tribute to a great Aggie who served College Station with 
honor and great respect. I know I am not alone as I say thank you, Dick 
Birdwell, for all that you have done for the Aggie community.

                          ____________________
```
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 455 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. 

Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 455 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 501 East 

3 Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and 

4 designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Court5 house’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States 

11 Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 25, 2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Matter of the Application of Tom PETERS on Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12888.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 27, 1960.

*1021Sam Goodwin, Pauls Valley, Holmes Colbert, Sulphur, for petitioner.

G. Dixie Colbert, County Atty., Murray County, Sulphur, for respondent.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original action by Tom Peters, who complains that he has been unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Murray County, Oklahoma.

It appears that the cause of said restraint was by reason of an information filed in the District Court of Murray County, Oklahoma, wherein petitioner, Tom Peters, was charged with having committed the crime of murder of one, Billy Don Sullivan, on March 6, 1960, in said County and State.

It further appears that he was granted a preliminary hearing in the Justice of the Peace Court, Honorable Frank Turner, Justice of the Peace, presiding, on March 8, 1960, where he was denied bail.

It also appears that on March 8, 1960, he made application to the District Court of Murray County, Honorable W. J. Monroe, District Judge, presiding, wherein, again, he was committed on said charge without hail.

On April 8, 1960, he filed his application for bail in this Court. A rule to show cause was issued and the matter was set for hearing on April 20, 1960, at which the witnesses were sworn and heard, and the transcript of the proceedings in District Court offered in evidence for and against the granting of bail.

The court being fully advised in the premises, finds that the proof of guilt was not evident, nor the presumption thereof great, that the petitioner, if found guilty upon the charge as made in the information on file in the District Court, would receive the death penalty or life imprisonment. Wilson v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 388, 223 P.2d 561; Ex parte Spears, 85 Okl.Cr. 101, 185 P.2d 479. Under such conditions this court has repeatedly held, that the petitioner should be admitted to bail.

This court is of the opinion that bail should be granted in the sum of $20,000, said bond to be conditioned as provided by law, to be approved by the Court Clerk of Murray County, that when said bond is given and approved by the Court Clerk of said county, the petitioner should be discharged from custody to await further orders of the Court.

NIX, J., concurs.

POWELL, P. J., not participating.
# C_2008301EN.01005001.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/50

---

Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)

(Case T-389/08)

(2008/C 301/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lemans Corporation (Janesville, United States) (represented by: M. Cover, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stephen Turner (Luddington, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 778/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 778/2007-2;

| — | A declaration that the opposition be dismissed and that Community trade mark concerned may proceed to registration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that the opposition be dismissed and that Community trade mark concerned may proceed to registration; and

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the appeals before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the appeals before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ICON’ for goods and services in classes 9, 18 and 25 — application No 2 197 440

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘IKON’ for goods in class 9 — UK trade mark registration No 2 243 676

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the other party to the proceedings before it had locus standi to file the opposition.

Pleas in law:

locus standi

---
#### C. S. FRENCH, Plaintiff in Error, v. HERNDON DRILLING COMPANY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, a domestic corporation, Defendant in Error.

No. 36628.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 30, 1954.

Fletcher S. Riley, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Hoel & Horton, Stillwater, John E. Curran, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

This action was brought by C. S. French against Herndon Drilling Company for damages. Judgment resulted for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

The motion for new trial was overruled May 10, 1954. The case was filed in this court on August 28, 1954. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the case was not filed in this court within three months after the date of the overruling of the motion for new trial and there was no order of the trial court extending the time for the appeal. The motion must be sustained.

In Roof v. Fechtel, Okl., 258 P.2d 890, we said:

> “Where the petition in error with record or case made is not filed within three months after the judgment or final order made in the case and there has been no order of the trial court extending the time for appeal as provided by 12 O.S.1951 § 972, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of SIN Holdings, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, (the
Report), I, Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on 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 requirement of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act  of 1934; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2) |  | the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the
Companys financial position and results of operations.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Steve S. Sinohui
Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 11, 2004

---